Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Driving Licences (Groups of Vehicles)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the holder of a substantive licence to drive any group or groups of motor vehicles is compelled to take out a new licence on becoming qualified to drive an additional group, thus involving himself in some financial loss; and if he will take steps to change this procedure and allow a codicil to be added to the existing licence to cover the new group.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The existing law does not permit of codicils being added to driving licences to authorise the driving of additional groups of vehicles, but I will consider the point when an opportunity occurs to amend the Road Traffic Acts.

Mr. Bower: Can the Minister say whether there is any likelihood of introducing legislation to deal with this grievance at a reasonably early date?

Mr. Barnes: I afraid that is a decision that does not fall within my province.

Bridges, Manchester Area

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what action he intends to take to improve the Manchester Ship Canal bridges and to construct the urgently-required new bridges; where it is proposed that the new bridges shall be built; and if he will consider the need for new bridges at Salford, Eccles, Barton and Irlam.

Mr. Barnes: As highway authority for trunk roads, I am directly interested only in Knutsford Road swing bridge, which

carries the existing trunk road. I propose to divert the road and carry it over the canal by a new bridge to be built about a mile to the east. I do not know the full plans of the other highway authorities concerned but I understand that they have in mind the improvement of several of the existing bridges and the construction of new ones between Eccles and Urmston and between Widnes and Runcorn. All these schemes are long-term projects, the execution of which must await a substantial improvement in the economic situation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Seeing that that has been the answer for 30 years, could the Minister now give us some indication of what the priority of this district will be?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot do that. My hon. Friend must note the last part of my remarks, namely, that it depends on the economic circumstances.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the business people of Manchester look upon the Barton Bridge area as the most seriously congested, and could he say whether what he has in mind will relieve the congestion in that area?

Mr. Barnes: I think it would make a very substantial contribution.

Facilities, Manchester and North Staffordshire

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will appoint a committee of investigation into the need for the modernisation of transport within a 50 miles radius of Manchester;
(2) what steps are being taken to improve the transport services between North Staffordshire and other areas within a 50 miles radius; and if he will appoint an investigating committee to consider the transport facilities in the area.

Mr. Barnes: The Transport Act, 1947, lays on the British Transport Commission a general duty to see that adequate and efficient transport facilities are provided throughout the country, but the responsibility for modernising and improving services not controlled by the Commission still rests with the independent operators concerned. In view of the Commission's duties under the Act, it is for them to


consider whether the appointment of special committees of investigation is necessary, and in any event, if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular deficiencies in the services controlled by the Commission in the areas referred to, I am sure they would be glad to investigate them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As the Ministry of Transport is aware of the position in this area, will they use their influence to ask the Commission to take action similar to that taken in the London area, and set up a working party to investigate the needs of the area?

Mr. Barnes: I would point out that the problem of London Transport was a very major problem, but, even then, the finding of the committee does not indicate any immediate action. With regard to the problem in the area to which my hon. Friend refers, it occurs to me that the facilities provided by an area scheme under the Transport Act would be a more rapid way of dealing with that problem.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: As the Minister refers to the possibility of doing something under the Transport Act, will he tell us what progress has been made with the area schemes in this locality?

Mr. Barnes: As a matter of fact, in this particular locality, none; but, as my hon. Friend is aware, a scheme is under consideration in the North-Eastern area, and it is up to other localities also to provide similar inquiries.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As a first step, will the right hon. Gentleman see that trains do not stop so long at Stoke-on-Trent?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear from the answers which the Minister has given to this question that, instead of the Minister lecturing the workers, the workers ought to lecture the Minister?

Loss of Office (Compensation)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Transport when the regulations under Section 101 (1) of the Transport Act, 1947, requiring the Commission to pay compensation to officers in certain cases, where they suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or

pension rights or where their position is worsened, will be laid before the House; what are the reasons for the delay; and what compensation is being paid to officers or servants who suffer loss meantime.

Mr. Barnes: Regulations under this section providing compensation for officers and servants of the railways, the canals, and the railway clearing house have already been made. The further regulations required to be made under the section are in preparation and will be laid before the House as soon as possible. These regulations deal with sections of the transport industry which have no precedents of compensation such as existed for the railways, and their preparation has, therefore, taken longer. As regards the last part of the Question, the British Transport Commission have no power to pay compensation until regulations have been made.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that many of these splendid officers of the road transport undertakings are in very grave doubt and anxiety as to where they stand? Is it not vitally necessary that they should have the facts made clear to them at the earliest date, and that if they have been occasioned any loss, it should be made good to them?

Mr. Barnes: I am certainly aware of the situation, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in drafting regulations covering these sections of the industry, which I emphasised have no precedents, it is very desirable to consult all the interests affected, and the proposals are now under consideration and are awaiting their views.

Railways (Damage to Crops)

Lieut-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Minister of Transport what has been the extent of damage by fire to agricultural crops this summer caused by railway engines; and to what extent it is estimated to be due to the discontinuance of preventive attachments being fitted to the engines.

Mr. Barnes: The total number of reported lineside fires affecting agricultural land, alleged to have been caused by railway engines this, year so far, is roughly 4,000. It is not established however, that spark ignition was the cause in all


such cases. I am unable at the moment to state the extent of the damage caused to agricultural crops, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member. There has been no discontinuance of preventive attachments to engines.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister say why this year the damage has been so much greater than in any other year?

Mr. Barnes: Apparently everybody is aware of the reason except the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what causes the fires, apart from spark ignition, in the case of railway engines?

Mr. Barnes: I am not able to get the proportions of fires due to particular causes.

London Airport (Bath Road)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the danger to pedestrians who have to cross the Bath Road by the London Airport, especially that stretch which is unrestricted and unlighted; and whether he can reduce the danger by the provision of traffic islands and crossing lights.

Mr. Barnes: I have had a special investigation made into traffic conditions on this road. This does not indicate danger to pedestrians such as would justify at the present time the considerable expenditure needed to widen the road so as to provide traffic islands. Nor do I think that traffic lights would be suitable or helpful here.

Mr. Beswick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this road is a speed track, that it is an unrestricted road, that at night it is not lighted and that there are no traffic islands whatsoever. Is he further aware that some hundreds of workers have to cross it, and would it not be reasonable to have a temporary island put in the middle of the road until such time as the future of this road has been decided?

Mr. Barnes: This matter has been carefully investigated, and there is no evidence to support the statement made by my hon. Friend.

Railway Accidents

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the number of railway accidents which took place during the years 1947, 1948 and during the six months ended 30th June, 1949, indicating in general terms the causes of such accidents, and the number of deaths and serious injuries incurred during those three periods respectively.

Mr. Barnes: The information for the years 1947 and 1948 is contained in the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways for the year 1948, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. It is not practicable to prepare such detailed statistics, as are contained in this Report, for a six-monthly period only, but with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of train accidents which took place during the six months ended 30th June, 1949.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask whether, in conjunction with the local authorities, everything possible is being done to prevent an accumulation of accidents upon the roads all over the country?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member's Question is directed to railways and not to roads.

Following are the particulars:


Train Accidents

1st January to 30th June, 1949


Total Number
…
554






Killed
Seriously Injured


Passengers
…
—
6


Servants
…
3
7


Other Persons
…
1
3




4
16




Causes Human Element




Train Crews
…
118


Signalmen
…
157


Technical Defects
…
159


Other Causes
…
120




554

Motor Cars (Shipment to Canada)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure the delivery to Canada of Austin motor cars ordered by Canadian customers.

Mr. Barnes: These arrangements are, of course, the responsibility of the shippers and the shipping lines concerned, but I understand that the cars arriving at the loading ports for Canada are being shipped without delay and that there is no shortage of shipping space.

Inland Waterways (Freight Charges)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Transport the total freight charges for the conveyance of traffic on the inland waterways for the years 1947, 1948, and the first six months of 1949; and if he will indicate the measures which have been adopted for the increase of canal traffic for relief of road and rail transport.

Mr. Barnes: Since the decontrol of canals and canal carriers at the end of 1947, my Department has not received information about the revenue from the conveyance of traffic on inland waterways, except in relation to craft owned by the British Transport Commission. Such information is published in the Commission's "Transport Statistics" and in the Commission's Report for 1948. I have asked the Commission to communicate with the hon. Member on this subject of traffic receipts and the measures taken to increase canal traffic.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister taking every precaution possible to encourage transport on the canals in order to relieve the transport on the railways and other means of communication?

Mr. Barnes: Under the Transport Act the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive were charged with this responsibility, and I have no doubt that they are giving very serious attention to the problem. As a matter of fact, I think traffic on the canals has shown an increase.

British Railways (Loss)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what was the overall loss incurred on British Railways in 1948, including operating costs, central administration and capital charges; and what was the comparative figure for 1947.

Mr. Barnes: The net traffic receipts of British Railways in 1948, together with the net yield of other parts of the Commission's undertaking, were insufficient to

meet central charges, including interest and amortisation of capital, by about £4.7 million. The Act requires that the Commission's finances shall be treated as a whole, and not that the overhead charges should be precisely allocated between the different businesses. The contribution of the railways to the integrated finances in 1948 must, however, be regarded as seriously deficient, and an estimate has already been published putting the deficiency at between £8 million and £9 million. For reasons explained in paragraph 84 of the Commission's Report, no valid comparison of net results with those for 1947 is possible.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that the cost to the Exchequer of the operation of British Railways in 1947, allowing for the £43,500,000 that was paid into the pool, was in the neighbourhood of £60 million? As the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was still stating in "Picture Post" a fortnight ago that the railways declared a loss of £25 million, will my right hon. Friend draw this fact to the attention of the Opposition so that they can get their sums right in future?

Road and Rail Plan, London

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, since the British Transport Commission has now reported that the scheme of their London Plan Working Party for the expenditure of £340 million on the further improvement of rail transport in the London area is not economically justifiable from the transport angle and must be financed from sources other than their own, he can give an assurance that before any final decision is taken he will arrange for a comprehensive and impartial examination of the London transport problem as a whole, including transport by road as well as by rail;
(2) how many planning authorities are involved in the preparation of an adequate road system for the London area; by what date he expects that these plans will be sufficiently developed for him to form a definite estimate of the cost involved; and to see what action is necessary to co-ordinate the proposals with those of the London Plan Working Party of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Challen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give an assurance that steps will now be taken to produce a fully co-ordinated road and rail plan for London so that when the economic situation permits such money as is available may be divided over each category in order to ensure the best overall arrangements.

Mr. Barnes: As I have already informed the House, the Government have fully in mind the need for co-ordination of rail and road plans for London and no proposal for a major change in either road or rail facilities is considered without taking alternative forms of transport fully into account. A comprehensive road and rail plan should emerge from the preparation and approval of development plans for the Greater London area by the 10 planning authorities concerned. Coordination of the road and rail aspects will take place as a continuing process in the preparation of these plans. It will be several years before the development plans are sufficiently firm to enable a definite estimate to be made of the capital expenditure.

Sir W. Wakefield: Can the Minister expedite this plan, because there is a considerable hold-up in development projects and buildings of all kinds due to the delay? It would greatly help matters if this plan could be accelerated.

Mr. Barnes: I should certainly like to do so, but, as the hon. Member is aware, until the other planning authorities—the local authorities—are able to complete their plans, it is very difficult for me to form any definite estimate or to give any direct guidance.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister bringing any pressure to bear on the local authorities to complete the plans they are now formulating?

Mr. Barnes: We are always pressing forward with the preparation of plans to enable us to complete our road schemes.

Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend see that priority is not given to the London area, on the basis of its being London, without having regard to the needs of provincial centres, as was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his earlier Question today?

Mr. Barnes: This will not in any way affect the preparation of plans for provincial areas. The complaint here is not speeding up but delays.

Colonel Dower: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 10 planning authorities will ever agree?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

London Metal Exchange

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply if he will now enable the London Metal Exchange to reopen for all appropriate business.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Dealings in tin will be resumed on the London Metal Exchange on Tuesday, 15th November. On copper, lead and zinc I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 11th July to the hon. Members for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) and Stroud (Mr. Parkin).

Sir Waldron Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the closing of these exchanges is one of the reasons for the statement which will be made today?

Contraceptives (Slot Machine Sales)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Supply if he is prepared to reconsider the policy of his Department in granting licences for the manufacture of slot machines for the sale of contraceptives thereby encouraging their use in this country.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Supply (1) the number of slot machines for the sale of contraceptives now in use in Great Britain, and for the manufacture of which a licence was granted by his Department;
(2) whether, when granting a licence to a certain firm of which he has been informed for the manufacture of slot machines, he has been informed of the concession made to them by the manufacturers of contraceptives for sale in the machines.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Supply what consideration was given to the moral aspect of the


matter before a licence for the manufacture of slot machines for the sale of contraceptives was granted; what protests have subsequently been received by his Department from religious and other bodies; and whether he will make a full statement on the matter.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Supply how far it is the policy of his Department to give facilities for the manufacture of slot machines for the sale of contraceptives.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Supply why he granted a licence for the manufacture of automatic slot machines for the sale of contraceptives; and whether he will cancel the licence forthwith.

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister or Supply if, when he issued a licence permitting the manufacture and erection of certain slot machines, he was aware that they were intended for the indiscriminate sale of contraceptives.

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Supply how many slot machines of the pattern used for selling contraceptives in this country have been licensed for export; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent these machines being used in the export drive.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No licence has been granted by my Ministry specifically for the manufacture of slot machines for the sale of contraceptives. The number of such machines now in use in Great Britain is not known. My Ministry is concerned only with the issue of the licences required under the Machinery, Plant and Appliances Orders for the manufacture and supply of slot machines. These machines are used for selling a wide variety of goods such as aspirin, cigarettes, sweets, hair cream, sanitary towels, drinks and food. The range of goods sold is governed by the value of the coin which operates the machine, and by the size of the delivery tray. Within these physical limitations any slot machine may be used for the sale of any article which can legally be offered for sale.
In view of this freedom of choice, a licence issued to a manufacturer is a general one and my Department has no knowledge of the use to which these

machines will be put. The only way in which I could prevent machines being used for the sale of contraceptives in this country would be by prohibiting the manufacture of all slot machines, which would, of course, deny to the public the use of convenient purchasing facilities for numerous other goods. The licence stipulates the total value of slot machines to be exported and no export licence is needed. I have no power to control the use made of machines exported from this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed the House on 20th October, he has given instructions for a model by-law to be drafted prohibiting the sale of contraceptives by means of these machines and this has now been circulated to the competent local authorities.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary stated that they knew perfectly well what these machines were to be used for, but that in the interests of the export trade they would be allowed to try them out at home?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary wrote a letter which has been widely misrepresented, and in that letter he was dealing with slot machines in general and not any particular type of slot machine.

Mr. Symonds: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is really a new problem at all? Is it not a fact that for many years past contraceptives have been obtainable through slot machines in London?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. That is so.

Mr. Lipson: When a licence was requested to manufacture more slot machines, was no inquiry made by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry as to whether it was necessary to make more slot machines and for what purpose they were to be used? In view of the shortages, was it not the duty of the Minister to make these inquiries?

Mr. Strauss: We gave a licence because there were possibilities of substantial exports of slot machines. We gave a licence to these companies for that reason.

Mr. Logan: Does the Minister mean to say that where there is anything that is offensive to the public taste and to which parents have an objection, there cannot be restrictions in its being placed in a slot machine? It seems most ridiculous. Will he take steps to see that this does not continue?

Mr. Speaker: Sir John Mellor.

Mr. Chamberlain: As mine was one of the Questions which the Minister answered, may I not ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I thought we had sufficiently exhausted the subject.

Mr. Chamberlain: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said I thought we had sufficiently exhausted the subject. It is my decision; the hon. Member must obey it.

Mr. Chamberlain: On a point of Order. May I respectfully point out to you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said we had exhausted it sufficiently and I did not want any more questions, and that is the end of that.

Royal Ordnance Factories (Paid Sick Leave)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the sick pay scheme in Royal Ordnance Factories since it was introduced in September, 1948; what was the rate of sickness in the 12 months before and after introduction of the scheme, respectively; and what action he has taken to prevent abuse.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the working of the National Health Service in the Royal Ordnance Factories where claims for sickness benefit increased by 20 per cent. since the insurance scheme began in July, 1948; and when he will publish the results of the official inquiry into the increase of absenteeism and benefit claims.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give the details of the sickness benefit scheme operating in Royal Ordnance factories; what steps are taken to avoid abuse of the scheme; and what action is taken when it is abused.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by his Parliamentary Secretary on 17th August that cases of sickness have doubled since the scheme began and that there has been Oaring exploitation?

Mr. Strauss: The amount of absence through sickness has increased substantially in most of the Royal Ordnance factories and there has been, no doubt, a certain amount of abuse, but disciplinary action has been taken wherever abuse has been found.

Mr. Osborne: What suddenly happened to cause the position to deteriorate so badly that the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary had to give up his summer holiday to go and "pi-jaw" the workers about it?

Mr. Strauss: I do not understand what the hon. Member means. It is part of the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary to visit the Royal Ordnance Factories and to see that the work there is carried out efficiently. I should have thought that the fact that he did it during the summer months was no reason to abuse him.

Mr. Tolley: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to stop abuse would be to see that in every case a doctor's certificate has to be obtained by the worker concerned before he can go home sick?

Mr. Strauss: He has to have a doctor's certificate under the present arrangements.

Following is the answer:

The paid sick leave arrangements operating in the Royal Ordnance Factories for industrial employees are those laid down in the scheme which applies to all Government industrial employees, and which was agreed between the Treasury, the Departments concerned and the trade unions represented on the Joint Co-ordinating, Committee for Government Industrial Establishments.

The scheme, which is due for review in September, 1950, provides that after a qualifying period of six months employees may in any period of one year be granted sick leave with full pay, up to


a maximum of 13 weeks, less the amount of any National Insurance benefit. Full pay means the employee's ordinary time rate, and the first three days are not paid for unless absence extends to five days. After five years' service a further period of 13 weeks sick leave on half-pay is given. Grant of paid sick leave is conditional upon the production of medical certificates of unfitness obtained from a medical practitioner who is normally the National Health Service doctor.

The cost of the scheme in the Royal Ordnance Factories for the 12 months from its introduction in September, 1948, was £296,959. The following table shows the percentage of working days lost by industrial employees in the Factories on account of absence covered by medical certificate in the 12 months preceding and following its introduction:


Month


1947–48
1948–49


September
…
…
2.5
3.5


October
…
…
2.8
5.1


November
…
…
2.9
6.0


December
…
…
2.7
6.1


January
…
…
3.2
7.6


February
…
…
3.1
8.1


March
…
…
2.7
9.0


April
…
…
2.4
7.1


May
…
…
2.5
5.8


June
…
…
2.1
4.9


July
…
…
1.8
3.9


August
…
…
2.2
3.9

I am concerned by the increase shown in these figures and this is being thoroughly investigated. Appropriate disciplinary action is, of course, taken by my Department in cases of abuse.

Atomic Energy Research (Scientists)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply how many scientists are now being recruited for atomic energy research.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It would not be in the national interest to give this information.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say whether he is getting the numbers he requires?

Mr. Strauss: We are getting quite a number.

Caravans (Private Construction)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Supply why materials are not made available for private individuals who desire to

construct caravans for their own use, although similar materials are made available to makers of caravans for profit.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Certain scarce raw materials which are under licence are used for making caravans and it would not be desirable to divert these materials from the manufacturers, who are able to make a contribution to exports.

Nationalised Industries (Motor Cars)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Supply (1) whether officials of nationalised industries are permitted to buy their cars through the official pool without payment of Purchase Tax;
(2) what has been the total expenditure in the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 to the nearest convenient date on motor cars for Government Departments and nationalised industries.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent officials of nationalised industries are permitted to buy private cars through the car pool run by his Department; and whether such cars carry the usual Purchase Tax.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Neither nationalised industries nor their officials buy cars through my Department. The values of motor cars bought by the Ministry of Supply for all Government Departments in 1946, 1947 and 1948 are, in round figures, £942,000, £692,000 and £343,000 respectively. Up to the end of August, 1949, the value is £270,000. The total number of cars delivered from the end of the war to the end of August this year for use by Government Departments represents only 1.8 per cent. of the total deliveries of cars to the home market in the same period.

Brigadier Head: In answer to Question 32, will the Minister state whether or not officials of the nationalised industries are permitted to buy their cars without payment of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Strauss: We have no responsibility. I have certainly no responsibility for the nationalised industries and we do not purchase the cars for these industries.

Mr. Beswick: Does the Minister's reply mean that there is absolutely no truth in the leading article in the "Sunday


Express," and in view of the fact that it enunciated in that article that officials of the nationalised industries were buying cars less Purchase Tax and selling them at a profit, may I ask whether any apology or any correction has been sought?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly all the information and facts in the article, as far as I am able to check them and as far as I am responsible, were absolutely wrong and I very much hope the "Sunday Express" will publish this correction.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether civil servants are allowed to purchase cars through his buying facilities?

Mr. Strauss: That is one of the allegations made in the leader, and there is not one word of truth in it.

Steel Billets (Export)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Supply what quantities of steel billets were exported to France in the first six months of 1949; and whether, in view of the shortage of steel, further exports have been forbidden.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Apart from very small quantities of alloy steel and tool steel billets, which are not in short supply, the export of steel billets from this country is forbidden.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the present grave financial and economic situation of Britain, whether he will abolish either temporarily or permanently, some of the present Ministries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The distribution of duties between Departments is kept under review, but I am not at present proposing to abolish any Department.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the superfluous expenditure which the country is incurring now, would not the Prime Minister consider dealing with this subject later in the statement he is to make on the question?

The Prime Minister: We keep this particular point under very careful observation. It is one worthy of notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Knole Park (Huts)

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works when he expects to remove the huts from Knole Park; and from what date access was provided to remove the huts for his Department.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Access to Knole Park was given in February last and the hutments removed in July. I cannot yet say how soon arrangements can be made for the removal of the barbed wire, hut foundations and other debris.

Mr. Marples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, if the huts were removed in July, when the land can be de-requisitioned so that the public can have access to it?

Mr. Key: I understand that the question at issue now is the removal of the barbed wire and hut foundations.

Bricklaying Device

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works whether his regional research officer has reported on his visit to investigate the claim of a Bradford builder's labourer that any bricklayer can lay 1,000 ordinary bricks an hour by using a movable vertical ladder and, the ordinary scaffolding; whether he will publish the report, or such extracts as would be of interest; and what he estimates would be the time saved in housebuilding by the adoption of this practice.

Mr. Key: A report has been made in this case, and a copy sent to the inventor, with whose consent I am also sending the hon. Member a copy. As the device is at present only in an early experimental stage, it is impossible to estimate what time might be saved in housebuilding by its use.

Mr. Marples: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that any 'saving is likely? If so, will he pass the information to his scientific department?

Mr. Key: I think that the hon. Member will find in the report I am giving him that it is doubtful whether any saving will be made.

Official Stationery (Use)

Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, in accordance with details sent to him, Members of Parliament and others have been circularised by his Department by means of Ministry of Works official paid envelopes, urging them to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to reverse their policy with regard to certain matters of political and public importance; and if he sanctioned the use of such official communications and official envelopes for this purpose.

Mr. Key: I have not sanctioned the use of official communications and envelopes for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member. The officer concerned was the Staff Side secretary of the Regional Whitley Committee, and was under the mistaken impression that he could use official stationery for communications of this kind.

Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that stationery and paid official envelopes are not so easily obtainable, so that the abuse cannot occur again?

Mr. Key: Yes, most certainly; and in the new amending regulations immediate attention will be drawn to it.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has the official in question been promoted?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. He is quite a temporary officer, and is due, as a matter of fact, to leave at the end of this week.

Hans Crescent Hotel

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works when the Hans Crescent Hotel ceased to be used as a transit centre for European volunteer workers; to what use it has been put since; when it is expected to be released; and what yearly compensation rent is being paid.

Mr. Key: The Hans Crescent Hotel ceased to be used as a transit centre for European volunteer workers on 14th December, 1948. It has since been held for preparation as a hostel for colonial students. It is not usual to disclose the compensation rent.

Commander Noble: In view of the shortage of hotel accommodation, does not the Minister think that it is a bad thing that this sort of hotel should be kept empty for nearly a year when it is obviously costing the country a large sum in compensation rent?

Mr. Key: The use of this hotel has been a matter of much consideration, but the need for accommodation for colonial students is such that I feel that it ought to be retained for that purpose.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Could not this hotel have been used instead of No. 2 Park Street?

Requisitioned Land, Huntingdonshire

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that his Department last year informed the owner of certain requisitioned land at Hemingford Park, Huntingdonshire, that the Ministry would deliver up possession of that land on 23rd June, 1949, and that the land is urgently needed for agricultural purposes, but cannot be so used until it has been cleared of barbed wire, concrete foundations, etc.; and when it is intended to reinstate the property.

Mr. Key: I regret that I am unable to trace the undertaking referred to. Discussions are now taking place to determine precisely what areas require clearance for agricultural purposes, and the work will then be put in hand.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that this is valuable agricultural land which has lain derelict for a long time, and that the Government have had the whole of the last four months in which to clear it up; and will he say whether this sleeping sickness of delay is systematic of what we can expect nowadays?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. Discussions have been taking place with the people concerned as to the work we shall carry out, and when these discussions have been completed the work will be put in hand.

Ludford Magna Airfield (Fencing)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that his Nottingham surveyor promised the Louth National


Farmers' Union in June that the fencing surrounding the buildings of the Ludford Magna airfield, which is in a dilapidated state and provides no protection for stock, would be repaired within two weeks; that no repairs have been done; and what action does he now propose to take to end the negligence by his Department in this matter.

Mr. Key: No, Sir. I am informed that no such promise was given. The farmers were informed that owing to uncertainty as to the future use of the hutting, at present occupied by Polish families, no major scheme of repairs could be undertaken. Some repairs are now being put in hand pending a decision about the future use of this camp.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister saying that the National Farmers' Union are lying when they make this statement; and is he aware that there are acres of ground there that could feed sheep, which cannot be used because his Department have neglected their work, and will he have that seen to?

Mr. Key: I have made no accusation whatever against the National Farmers' Union. I said that they had been informed differently from what the hon. Gentleman had stated in his Question. As a matter of fact, at that meeting which took place on 20th May with the N.F.U., the minutes record that in view of the uncertainty of the life of this hostel, it would be a waste of public funds to undertake major repairs and/or the replacing of fencing generally at this time; that the matter should be deferred until later in the year, when the decision as to the life of the hostel would be known with more certainty, and, if still held on charge, the repair of the fencing as a whole would be undertaken.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not possible that the Minister has given the wrong answer? He is referring to a hostel, whereas my Question refers to a camp; it is not a hostel at all. He has got it mixed up.

Mr. Key: I can assure the hon. Member that if he were no more mixed than I am, he would more readily understand the answer I have given.

Steel Utilisation Methods

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Works what progress the Professional

Institutions' Committee on improved methods of steel utilization has made; and when it will be issuing its first report.

Mr. Key: The Committee has reviewed the steps already being taken by the professional institutions to secure adequate discussion of and publicity for improved methods of steel utilization, and has suggested to the institutions a number of further steps that might be taken. Some of these are still being discussed, and the Committee does not propose to report until the discussions are concluded.

Wood and Stone Carvers

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the risk of unemployment among wood and stone carvers; and whether he will issue sufficient licences to avert this.

Mr. Key: I am aware that comparatively little wood and stone carving is now being carried out in this country, and I hope to see a revival of these crafts. My licensing officers are instructed to license, as far as is reasonably possible, work employing wood and stone carvers.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister not aware that the majority of the London carvers, both of wood and of stone, are today working in the Palace of Westminster; and that when the new House of Commons is finished, although there is plenty of work for them to do, they will be thrown out of work unless he gives licences?

Mr. Key: As I have said, we will do our best to see that licences are issued in order to employ them.

Mr. David Eccles: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many Italian masons have been allowed in?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, not without notice.

Royal Parks (Plants and Cuttings)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange to retail to the public at reasonable prices plants and cuttings from the Royal Parks as they become available in the course of the year's programme of flower displays.

Mr. Key: I am afraid that it is not practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The stocks were badly


depleted during the war, and it is only with difficulty that sufficient plants can be secured or propagated to meet requirements in the Royal Parks and the grounds of Government establishments throughout the country.

Building Licences, Liverpool

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Works the number and amounts of licences granted to Lewis's Stores at Liverpool since the end of the war.

Mr. Key: Two licences to a total value of £1,200,000 have been granted for the rebuilding of Lewis's Stores in Ranelagh Street, Liverpool. Fifty-one other licences to a total value of £48,627 have been granted for work to Lewis's other premises in Liverpool, including the remaining part of the main store, their clothing factory, warehouses, garages, and other small buildings.

Mr. Keenan: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether this includes or is exclusive of the fittings, and the rest, which obviously go with it; does he not think that the amount granted for one particular firm in Liverpool showed at least some favour; and was it not rather excessive in view of the tremendous building programme for better purposes in Liverpool?

Mr. Key: I could not answer the first part of the supplementary question without notice. With regard to the second part, this scheme was sanctioned in the early part of 1947 in order that unemployment in the Liverpool area might be dealt with, and was at the time the only scheme available to come into quick operation for that purpose. Its carrying out has been considerably slowed down since then.

Mr. Logan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that because this licence has been granted for this particular building, the Housing Committee of Liverpool has been handicapped for some years; and that while other buildings are derelict, privilege and monopoly have been given to Lewis's to get this building up, which is a scandal?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. During the whole of the period of operation of this licence, my Department has kept a very careful

watch to ensure that labour is not being drawn from other jobs, and that material is not being used to the detriment of housing.

Mr. Gallacher: We want houses not Woolton.

Mr. George Porter: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, in regard to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), that the thousands of pounds which will be spent on fittings and decorations subsequent to the work which has been licensed will need no licence, and that there will be no control over them?

Mr. Key: Decorations, and so on, would normally be part of the licence concerned.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Works what reasons prompted his Department to issue a licence to Mecca Cafes, Liverpool, for £18,800 to alter the Olympia Theatre to a dance hall; what restrictions were imposed on the type of labour and materials to be used; and if he is aware that a large dance hall has been next door to the Olympia for many years.

Mr. Key: The type of labour required was available, and only small quantities of steel and softwood were required. No special restrictions were placed on the type of labour to be employed, and only sufficient controlled materials for the job were released. I do not consider that the fact that there is a dance hall next door is relevant as I understand this is the entertainment centre for the area.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister not aware that the granting of these licences for luxury building is being very strongly commented upon by the many families in Liverpool who are living in housing conditions under which no people should be asked to live?

Mr. Key: Most of this work was repair and decoration work, and by far the larger amount of labour that was put into it was existing unemployed painting labour in the area.

Mr. Marples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this ballroom is a suitable place for Merseyside enthusiasts to practise the jig?

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister not aware that many loads of bricks are being used and many bricklayers are working on this building continually, and are working overtime, while we in Liverpool are unable to complete our housing programme because we cannot get bricklayers?

Mr. Key: So far as this building is concerned, most of this work is stone work and provides occupation for labourers and masons who could not otherwise be employed.

Mrs. Braddock: That is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue instructions to all Ministers of the Crown to make important announcements to the House of Commons before doing so to any other organisation.

The Prime Minister: In general, important announcements of policy are made to this House in the first instance whenever possible. The hon. Member will realise, however, that this is not always practicable; there are, for example, times of the year when the House is not sitting. In any event, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council stated last week, the communications which pass between the Government and representative bodies of citizens are within the discretion of the Government, subject always to their ultimate responsibility to this House.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Arthur Deakin, in his "Workers' Record," said that before going on the air the Chancellor of the Exchequer called on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and gave them a preview of the Government's decision? Why was this done, and why was not the House informed? Are we to assume that he has to placate the trade unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the old saying that he who calls the piper plays the tune?

The Prime Minister: The last point seems to be rather confused, but there is certainly nothing to prevent Ministers from consulting with individuals before a statement is made in the House.

Sir W. Smithers: Of course, I should have said, "He who pays the piper."

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Lord President of the Council what action has been taken arising out of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not think that there is anything which I can usefully add at present to my remarks in the Debate on 28th July, at the conclusion of which the House unanimously resolved that it would welcome all possible action on the part of the Press to give effect to the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. I understand from a statement issued to the Press that the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society have the Commission's recommendations under consideration, and no doubt the proprietors will make their intentions known as soon as possible.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern being felt in the country at the increase in some of our daily and weekly newspapers of rumour-mongering, wild speculation, sex, sensationalism, and sheer lies, such as that which has been referred to today? Will he not take such steps as he can to urge the Press to set its own house in order?

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the attention of the Press will be drawn to my hon. Friend's observations. I think all good journalists will take what he says into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make public the terms of the draft memorandum addressed to him by the Festival of Britain 1951 Committee.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I should regard any draft submitted to me by the Festival of Britain as confidential.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the announcement to be made today, are we to assume that the Government do not wish to make public more than is necessary their policy of squandermania?

Mr. Morrison: It is quite improper that Departmental communications to a Minister should reach the hands of Members of Parliament; and I think it is a point for consideration by hon. Members whether, having received them, they should put Questions in the House or should communicate with the Minister about the divulgence of confidential information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGINA PECTORIS (TREATMENT)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Lord President of the Council what research is being carried out by the Medical Research Council into the claims made as to the effectiveness of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) therapy for heart diseases.

Mr. H. Morrison: A trial of vitamin E in the treatment of angina pectoris has been carried out with financial support from the Medical Research Council. The results did not bear out the suggestion that vitamin E should be used in the routine treatment of this condition.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of doctors in this country are using this treatment and that it is claimed that beneficial results are obtained? Although it has not been unanimously accepted, is it not advisable to have an inquiry established whether this is or is not a treatment that should be more widely available?

Mr. Morrison: That is why these inquiries were made. That is the result of the investigation by the Medical Research Council, which the House will accept as a very highly authoritative body. If there is any change in the evidence, the Council will be willing to consider it again.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that results very different from those he reports as coming from the Medical Research Council have been obtained by highly reputable investigators in a clinic in Canada? As beneficial effects have been obtained from this vitamin in this country, would he not influence the Minister of Health to give a licence, so that this product can be imported into this country in sufficient quantities to give proper results?

Mr. Morrison: The investigations in Canada were taken into full account by the investigators of the Medical Research Council, but I am advised that carefully controlled attempts to repeat Doctor Shute's findings in this country and America have mostly given negative results.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it proposed to issue some of this before 3.30 today?

Mr. Dumpleton: If a number of claims are made on behalf of this treatment, will they be passed on to the Medical Research Council?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Berlin Air-Lift

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs now that the Berlin air-lift has ended, to state the total cost of goods and transport and the proportion borne by the British taxpayer.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am unable to state the total cost of the goods supplied to Berlin during the blockade; these were obtained from the Western zones without extra expense to the British taxpayer. The total extra cost of the air-lift to the British Exchequer was approximately £10 ¼ million. I have no information about United States expenditure on the air-lift, but the United States Air Force carried about 77 per cent. of the total load flown into Berlin.

Military Police, Eastern Zone

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests he has made to the Soviet authorities regarding the organisation and equipment of military and para-military German forces in the Eastern zone of Germany; what replies have been received; and what further action is contemplated.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government would be ready to make representations to the Soviet Government on this subject if they felt that any useful purpose would be served by doing so. The Soviet Government is doubtless aware


that His Majesty's Government view with the greatest repugnance the creation of German military police forces in the Soviet zone, which is a contravention of the Potsdam Agreement.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that this House and, therefore, the British public have been kept in the dark regarding the gravity of this situation, and will not his right hon. Friend consider making a statement of some length explaining to us just how serious things are?

Mr. Mayhew: On the contrary, we have kept the House fully informed, and General Robertson has drawn attention to this on several occasions.

Reparations

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on German reparations.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 19th October in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, once the dismantling is out of the way, the Government will consider dropping the question of all further reparations from Germany?

Mr. Mayhew: So far as I can see, the termination of dismantling would be the end of reparations.

Imports from Eastern Zone

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent food and fodder have been imported into Western Germany from the Soviet zone since the conclusion of the trade agreement between the two areas.

Mr. Mayhew: No information is at present available about imports under the agreement, which was only concluded on 8th October. Moreover, responsibility for the collection of statistics in trade matters rests with the Federal German Government.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my right hon. Friend accept the statement that in the fairly near future enough

food and fodder will come into the British zone from the Eastern zone to enable us to cut down our supplies of food and fodder from this country to the Germans?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot say that enough will come in, but it is certainly our objective that more should come.

Emigration

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether facilities are available to Germans in the British zone to emigrate permanently to other countries; and whether Britain is included in the scheme.

Mr. Mayhew: Since July this year German nationals in the British zone (who can produce evidence that they will be accepted by another country) have been free to apply for exit facilities provided that their emigration is neither prejudicial to the interests of the Occupying Powers nor contrary to the economic interests of Germany. Germans applying to emigrate to this country would be dealt with under the general policy governing the admission of aliens for permanent residence in this country.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does that mean that Germans can apply now to emigrate to British Colonies with some chance of getting there?

Mr. Mayhew: So far as exit permits are concerned, unless they fall into the two categories which I have mentioned, the answer is "Yes." As for entry permits, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Does my hon. Friend's answer cover the emigration of Polish miners from Germany back to Poland?

Mr. Mayhew: The question of displaced persons is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POUND STERLING (DEVALUATION)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries, criticisms or protests he has received from the Governments of the European countries within the sterling


area in regard to the lack of prior consultation with them before the devaluation of the pound sterling was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Mayhew: None, Sir.

Sir T. Moore: Does the Under-Secretary think that this unilateral method of devaluation is calculated to promote confidence and goodwill between ourselves and the other countries concerned?

Professor Savory: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers that the failure to give notice to the French Government was consistent with Article 4 of the Treaty of Dunkirk; and is he not aware that the word "Dunkirk," so sacred to us, is being used as a form of opprobrium?

Mr. Mayhew: There is no breach of any formal obligation in this procedure. The French Government, while regretting that it was not possible for us to give earlier notice, have themselves stated that they consider that we have fulfilled our obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMIR OF CYRENAICA (GRANTS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what grants have been paid in recent years to the Emir of Cyrenaica; what other privileges and facilities have been granted to him and his family; and what is the explanation for this expenditure.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government as the temporary administering Power under the Italian Peace Treaty are responsible for the financial administration of Cyrenaica and this includes the expenses of His Highness the Amir. Since 1947 the Amir has received a civil list of £25,000 per year and in addition he and his family have received a post-war rehabilitation and resettlement grant totaling £35,650.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister explain why such benevolence took place on the part of his office towards the Emir, and why he cannot show such generosity to our own people?

Mr. Mayhew: The method which we have adopted is undoubtedly the most

effective way of administering the territory.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is he to be recommended for a cut?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA AND GERMANY (DETAINED BRITISH PERSONNEL)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British soldiers are detained by the Soviet authorities in Germany and Austria, respectively; and for what periods and reasons they have been detained.

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that the Russians are holding, in Germany, nine of our soldiers and one member of the Women's Royal Army Corps, and, in Austria, two of our soldiers. As the details of the individual cases are varied and lengthy, I will, with permission circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent he has been able to verify that any of these persons could reasonably be regarded as political refugees, or is that just an afterthought on the part of someone?

Mr. Mayhew: We have not been given facilities to verify in all cases. We have permission to interview this week one of these men who claimed to be a political refugee.

Following is the statement:

Names of the soldiers detained, and reasons given for detention. In each case the date of absence from his unit but not the exact date on which he was detained is available.

GERMANY

14709611, Private Kelly, F. W. J.

133 Parachute Field Ambulance. Absent January, 1946. No reason given.

14703832, Private Moncaster, N.

Royal Pioneer Corps. Absent May, 1947. No reason given.

6408481, Private Baker, A.

2nd South Staffs. Absent December, 1947. Soviet authorities acknowledge that he was detained, but no reason given.

220957, Private Stuart, J.

2nd Parachute Battalion. Absent August, 1949. According to the Soviet authorities he defected to them for political reasons; they have now given permission for him to be interviewed.

14935852, Private Crossley, W.

15 Base Ordinance Depot. Absent November, 1947. Soviet authorities acknowledge that he was detained, but no reason given.

14441181, Private Eggleton, D.

1st Manchester Regt. Absent October, 1947. Soviet authorities acknowledge that he was detained, but no reason given.

268386, Major Squires, R. J., R.A.E.C.

Absent September, 1947. Soviet authorities state that they have no trace of him.

14475679, Private Tyrell.

Queen's Royal Regiment. Absent November, 1948. No reason given.

T/ 166163, Corporal Garrick.

Absent September, 1948. No reason given.

200969 Corporal Schultz, A.

14 Battalion, W.R.A.C. Arrested by the Soviet Zone German Police while going to visit her mother, although she had a Russian permit. No answer received from the Soviet authorities about her.

AUSTRIA

22017561 Private Tyndall.

Northants Regiment.

19170697 Private Newsam.

Northants Regiment. Detained 27th September, 1949, by Austrian Gendarmerie and handed over to Russian authorities. Negotiations for their release are in train.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

New Commons Chamber (Upholstery)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Works where the upholstery for the new Commons Chamber has been manufactured.

Mr. Key: The leather for the upholstery of the benches in the new House of Commons will be dyed and finished in Bermondsey. The contract for the upholstering work has not yet been let.

Mr. Haire: Was this order put out to tender, and was High Wycombe invited to give estimates?

Mr. Key: As I have said, the upholstering work has not been let.

Lighting

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works if he is now prepared to restore normal lighting in all parts of the Palace of Westminster, including the lamps on the Terrace river front.

Mr. Key: The existing D.C. supply cannot take any further load but a new A.C. supply will be available in about six months, and further improvements

will then be possible. The lamps on the Terrace have very rarely been lit during the past 20 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Opencast Coal (Quality)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why he has refused to examine complaints concerning the quality of opencast coal distributed by the National Coal Board as his agents.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I am not aware of any case where there has been a refusal to examine such complaints, but if the hon. Member will let me have details I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Farmers (Petrol Allowances)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, with a view to reducing the number of forms that farmers have to fill in, he will abolish Form R,(MS)6 for red petrol for tractors, since the penalties for improper use of red petrol render unnecessary the restriction of supply for its use in farm tractors.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has considered the possibility of simplifying the procedure under which farmers apply for petrol; and what changes in the present arrangements he proposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: It would not be practicable to de-ration red petrol for agricultural purposes only, and I am satisfied, after consulting the Standing Advisory Committee, that to take red petrol off the ration altogether would inevitably be accompanied by a substantial increase in consumption which we cannot afford. I am, however, arranging that as from the rationing period beginning on 1st March, 1950, farmers will be able to apply for all their petrol allowances, including those for private cars, on one form instead of two. Moreover, the rationing period will, from the same date, be extended from three to six months. Farmers will thus have to complete only two forms a year to cover all their requirements.

Mr. De la Bère: Will not the Minister further consider doing away with this form, in view of the fact that it handicaps farmers when we want every ounce


of food we can get from every acre of land; and that although this may be the last Question it is the most important one of the day?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think the hon. Gentleman is stretching his imagination too far in suggesting that filling in two forms a year is really too much for the farmers.

Polish Petroleum (Import)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consideration he has given to the purchase of petroleum from Poland; and with what result.

Mr. Gaitskell: Petroleum is not regularly exported from Poland, but some small quantities of motor spirit were recently offered for sale and two cargoes have been imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Government have been making purchases of petroleum from Poland and not paying dollars for it?

Mr. Gaitskell: According to my information, the Australian Government gave permission to importers to import petroleum from Poland, but they were unable to obtain any.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House.
The Government have made it clear that any advantages to be reaped from the devaluation of the pound might easily be offset by an inflationary tendency. With devaluation we have a great opportunity to increase our exports; but, until new production can fill the gap, the increased diversion of goods from the home market which will be necessary to maintain and then to increase our foreign exchange receipts will reduce the amount of goods available, while the amount of money available to buy them remains about the same.
To counter this risk of inflation and that arising from excessive demand on the home market, we must reduce expenditure and increase production.
I will deal first with the reduction of expenditure. The Government have decided to take action which will, apart from a saving in Defence expenditure to which I will presently refer, have a total disinflationary effect when in full operation of about £250 million a year. Reductions will be made both in the capital expenditure programme and in Government expenditure on revenue account.
These are, of course, interim measures which will be reviewed before the next Budget is introduced, when any further necessary adjustments can be made to maintain the desired disinflationary effect.
Let me first take capital expenditure. In 1948, the value of goods devoted to fixed investment was about £2,000 million. This was well above the pre-war rate of capital expenditure. For the current year the figure may approach £2,100 million. We now propose, in the new programme which is coming forward for 1950, to reduce the rate of this capital expenditure by about £140 million a year. We hope that this will become fully effective in the second half of 1950. The general pattern of reduction has been worked out, and it is clear where the main weight must fall.
We need a large increase in exports of engineering equipment to hard currency markets: this must be at the expense of the home market, but care will be taken


to avoid wherever possible cuts which would undermine our efforts to improve efficiency. Again, the home market is at present receiving a much larger flow of commercial vehicles than was planned, or than we can afford, and supplies must be diverted to export.
In addition to a number of smaller items, both in the industrial and in the Government field, on which some reductions can be made, we must secure a substantial total contribution from the large programmes of capital expenditure of the fuel and power industries, the expanding education programme, new housing, and the large field of miscellaneous investment.
While there can be no question of the importance to our economy as a whole of capital expenditure in the fuel and power industries, nevertheless a substantial contribution can be obtained there. So far as possible, the necessary cuts will be made at the expense of longer-term projects.
In education there will be some slowing down of our advance. We shall maintain the progress of school and technical college building, securing the necessary savings by reducing costs and postponing the expansion of the school meal service.
In the case of the housing programme, which will be reduced by some £35 million a year, the Government will see that the reduction in the number of new authorisations is made in accordance with a proper regard to priorities. By reducing the number of licences issued for the erection of houses by private persons, we shall secure that the local authority programme for the building of houses to let can proceed without any marked reduction.
In order to ensure that the labour and materials saved on the main programme do not drift into inessential works, we shall tighten up considerably the general control of building, which with certain other measures will enable us to make a further saving of about £35 million in the miscellaneous category.
I now turn to Government expenditure on revenue account. The attempt to secure economy in the administration of Government policy is nothing abnormal. Adjustments are continuously taking place both in the course of the formulation of Estimates and through improve-

ments in organisation. Since July, 1948, such improvements have resulted in between a 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. saving in administrative personnel in the civilian departments other than the Post Office.
But in the present situation special economies, additional to these normal adjustments are called for. The Government have decided on reductions of expenditure which, together with the increase of Profits Tax which has already been announced, should produce well over £100 million for next year's Budget. This aggregate includes a mass of detail which will appear in next year's Estimates, but there are certain major items with which I will deal.
Before the Recess I had instructed all Ministers to review the expenditure of their Departments. This review showed that between £40 million and £45 million a year can be saved by curtailment of services which are not essential to major Government policy, and by drastic economies in the administration of other services which must be retained. These savings are spread over all Departments and cover a large number of smaller items as well as several larger reductions.
I give the following items as illustrative of the more important reductions. We propose to reduce by about £5 million the charge for education in England and Wales and Scotland by a variety of measures which include an increase in the charge for school meals by 1d. and some reduced transport facilities for pupils.
In the preliminary estimate of State expenditure for agricultural purposes in Great Britain in 1950–51 there will be reductions amounting to about £6 million. This includes raising the minimum qualifying acreage in England and Wales for potato acreage payments and the slowing down of proposed acquisition of farm land.
We propose to find about £6 million from the Vote for the Ministry of Supply. This will come in the main from some reduction in the strength of the Royal Ordnance factories, from administration cuts in the technical establishments and from minor changes in policy, which will not materially affect the research and development programme.
We propose a reduction in the administrative expenditure of the Ministry of


Food by about £1,700,000, mainly by re-organisation and concentration of divisional and local offices and dropping some refinements of control. An annual saving of £800,000 will be secured by revising the register of electors only once instead of twice a year, and over £1 million will be saved by economies in the Information Services and the British Council.
Besides these reductions in existing services, we have considered services not yet in operation. We propose to defer the introduction of certain parts of the Legal Aid Scheme and to reduce by £1 million the estimated cost of the Festival of Britain. The cost of new services next year—those just mentioned together with the Sea Fish Industry Bill and the Coast Protection Bill—will amount to some £5,500,000, and this cost must be set off against reductions.
The total of these items still falls well short of what we consider necessary. We therefore intend to take certain further measures. We propose to make a charge of not more than 1s. for each prescription under the National Health Service. The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases. unnecessary; resort to doctors and chemists, of which there is evidence which has for some I time troubled my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The resultant saving will contribute about £10 million, although this is not the primary purpose of the charge. Arrangements will be made to relieve old age pensioners of this charge for prescriptions.
There will also be certain adjustments in the prices of some of the less essential foods. There will be increases in the prices of dried and frozen eggs and raisins. At the end of the winter we propose to remove price control on fish, and, with the abolition of maximum prices, the present subsidy on fish will be eliminated. We estimate that, with certain other adjustments, these changes will save £7 million in a full year.
After the next annual review in February of the general economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry, we shall eliminate the Exchequer subsidy on animal feedingstuffs, which is now running at an annual rate of £36 million. The effect that, this and other

factors may have either on agricultural or on consumers' prices, or both, is a matter which must be reserved for decision as a result of the annual review, but there will be no increase on this account in the subsidies on ordinary food.
These reductions are related to the anticipated expenditure during the next financial year. But they will be introduced as speedily as possible and will to some extent affect expenditure this year. Their total annual effect should be a saving of over £90 million. The effect on next year's Budget of these reductions and of the increase of the Profits' Tax which has already been announced should amount to well over £100 million.
I now come to Defence expenditure. Earlier in the year the Government set on foot a comprehensive review of the future structure of the Armed Forces. This was an inter-Service inquiry, conducted under the directions of the Chiefs of Staff at the request of the Minister of Defence, and its objects were to establish the relative roles of the three Services under the conditions of today, to ensure that we should get full value for the money spent on Defence, and to give us properly balanced Forces which could make a worthy contribution to Western Union and the Atlantic Pact.
The results of this review will determine the structure of the Armed Forces for many years to come, and the Government think it would be wrong to allow this to be prejudged by decisions taken to meet the immediate needs of the present economic situation. In the course of that review, however, recommendations for certain economies have been made and accepted and in many instances are in course of being implemented by the Services.
From these and other savings it has been possible to make reductions which, despite the effect of devaluation, will produce a saving at the annual rate of £30 million a year, amounting to £12½ million during the remainder of the current financial year. The Government's forecast of future Defence expenditure will be announced later, when their review of the future structure of the Armed Forces has been completed.
In accordance with the forecast made in July last by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer


the Government have now settled a new dollar import programme at the reduced figure of $1,200 million a year, which will come into operation at once and should reduce our imports in the first half of 1950 to $600 million. Care has been taken in fixing this to assure sufficient essential raw materials—if they are used with full economy and no waste—to provide the increased production we require.
The decisions I have announced will not require any immediate legislation except in the matter of the charges for prescriptions which can, I understand, be dealt with in a Bill now before Parliament.
It is, of course, of first importance that these steps taken by the Government to reduce inflationary pressure should not be frustrated by any increase in private expenditure. The principles laid down in the White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices are more important than ever. Private individuals, public and private corporations and local authorities must all exercise restraint and economise wherever possible.
Increases of spending, whether they come from increased profits, higher salaries or wages, the dissipation of savings, the use of capital accumulations for personal expenditure, or the unnecessary use of capital goods—all these increase the pressure on available goods and make for inflation. They may enable some to get rather more, but only at the expense of others.
If we are to maintain even our reduced volume of capital expenditure we need an increase in savings. Over the last 12 months there has been a very large withdrawal of small savings, which I hope will now become much smaller. I call upon everyone to assist the National Savings Movement, which has the support of all parties, and is a strong bulwark against inflation.
The measures which I have indicated, necessary as they are, form only one side of the action required to deal with the situation. The other side is increased production. This is the positive side. As the House knows, the Government have been pressing forward the drive for production. It is right to acknowledge that very great advances have been made, as the figures show—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell that to the Minister of Transport.

The Prime Minister: —but these advances are spread very unevenly over industry. In many firms, and indeed in some whole industries, little or no advance in productivity has been made: if all were as good as the best our problem of production would be in a fair way to solution. If we are to seize the great opportunities for export which devaluation has opened to us, and keep up the standard of supply in the home market, we must increase our production.
Devaluation has opened up great opportunities for export, and there are already signs of an increased demand for British goods. In particular, further production efforts are needed in those industries which are capable of expanded sales in dollar areas. Instances are high quality textiles, pottery, motor vehicles, engineering goods and a wide range of consumer goods such as cutlery, carpets, jewellery and footwear. In Canada there are great opportunities for capital goods and light engineering products. Expert salesmanship will be needed and we must be able to give early delivery.
I have stressed these industries in particular because of the direct effect that sales in hard currency countries will have on our balance of payments, and this must be the first priority. But we also need goods for supplying the non-dollar markets with commodities to pay for food and raw materials which we draw from these sources. We must also have an adequate supply of goods to meet the needs of the countries of the sterling area and thus indirectly to save dollars.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to detail the various steps which the Government have taken and are taking to assist the export trades such as the export credit guarantees, market research and the rest. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given a full account of them. Nor need I emphasise the importance of dollar-saving home production, particularly in agriculture. The need for increased production and increased efficiency and economy extends indeed to every part of our industrial organisation.
I have been greatly encouraged by instances which have come to my notice of managements and organised labour getting together to promote efficiency. Ministers in charge of production Departments will hold special meetings with


representatives of industries to consider what further steps can be taken in this direction. Leaders of both sides of industry can here make a great contribution. But joint consultation should not be confined to leaders. I hope that in every factory and industrial unit, management and workers will confer together forthwith to discuss ways and means. In these joint consultations no means of improvement should be ruled out on a priori grounds by either side.
One subject that should be seriously considered in many industries is the question of working hours. We have in this country unrivalled machinery for joint consultation. Let it be fully used to consider whether in appropriate cases additional output can be obtained by working added hours within the terms of existing arrangements or under such special arrangements as may seem necessary and desirable to both parties.
I have informed the House of the issue which is facing this country. It was made plain on a previous occasion that the wider problems of international trade, which were discussed in the tripartite talks at Washington by my right honourable and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can only be solved in co-operation with others.
Today, I am dealing with the measures that we in this country must take. Devaluation has given us the opportunity, it may be the last opportunity, of restoring our position as a trading nation without a drastic lowering of our whole standard of life. That opportunity must be seized. The measures, many of them most distasteful, which we are taking are necessary and consequential on the decision to devalue. They do not affect the main structure of the welfare State. They are rather a retardation of progress in certain directions. But they will enable us to overcome our immediate difficulties.
With a willing acceptance of these necessary economies, and a resolution to let nothing stand in the way of increasing production, the nation can go forward with confidence in the future.

Mr. Churchill: Naturally, it would be wrong and also mentally impossible to come to any conclusion upon the complicated and guarded statement—none the less of the gravest importance—which

the Prime Minister has made. I understand we are to have an opportunity during the present week of having a Debate on these matters, and we shall avail ourselves of the brief interlude there is to give the closest attention to what is proposed, and to do our utmost to see what is the advice which we on this side should tender to the House and the country at this serious juncture.
For the moment I will only say this interrogatively. The first question we must all ask ourselves is: Are these proposals adequate to the need in which we stand? The second question that we must ask ourselves is, if these proposals are practicable and adequate, why were they or their like not put forward two or three years ago when we asked that a check should be put upon unbridled and even fantastic expenditure? Both those matters must be considered at the same time as the merits of the proposals themselves.
I wish to say that any proposals here which on their merits seem to be for the good of the country, will be supported from this side of the House even though they are unpopular. We are not dissociating ourselves in any way from that part of our duty.
I only wonder why the right hon. Gentleman did not conclude his speech with some statement of a more general character, that on this crisis he would take a step which would most effectively improve our credit and undoubtedly make for national unity and effort, namely, to withdraw the aggressive measure of the Iron and Steel Bill, without prejudice to his belief in its principle, but as being unsuited to the times. Were some step like that taken in conjunction with these proposals they would show that the Government were approaching these grave matters on a national and not on a party basis.
I do not propose to say more on this at the present moment, but I understand we arc to have a Motion for our Debate on Wednesday and Thursday. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council could inform us upon the subject now.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I quite agree, and we also think it would be for the general convenience of the House if I were


to inform the House at this point of the terms of the Motion to be put in for the Order Paper by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. The terms of the Motion will be as follows:
That this House approves the line of action to deal with the present economic difficulties, as outlined in the Prime Minister's statement made on 24th October.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that there will be profound and widespread regret that the cuts in defence expenditure are apparently only administrative economies, and are not accompanied by a review of overseas commitments and a new initiative for peace, which are the pre-requisites of real defence cuts?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The Prime Minister's statement makes no reference to the very important question of the running down of our sterling balances, perhaps the biggest single factor in our trading difficulties. Will a statement be made on that subject on Wednesday?

The Prime Minister: That will, of course, be dealt with in the Debate on Wednesday and Thursday, but it was very fully dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Brigadier Medlicott: Having regard to the formidable statement which has been made, at what point do the Government propose to give some explanation of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement said that the only immediate effect of devaluation would probably be an increase in the price of bread?

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the cut in defence expenditure of £12 million by the end of this year include overseas military commitments, in particular Hong Kong?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that every cut since Easter, 1947, has made a worsening of the situation and not a bettering, and will he consult with any of his Socialist colleagues—if he has any—when they will inform him that increased production and decreased consumption can only lead to a slump and mass unemployment? There is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer shaking his head. Any Socialist will tell him that. May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that I and my

colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), will put down an Amendment in direct opposition to the Motion which the Government propose to put down? I hope any Socialists left in this House will support that Amendment against Tory Opposition.

Mr. Eden: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House whether any further information than has been given us today is to be made available before the Debate on Wednesday, either in the form of a White Paper or some other form, because the Prime Minister will realise that much of the information given to us is of a most sketchy character? That applies to the capital investment programme, in respect of which I cannot conceive how the House can have the faintest conception of what the Government's real intentions are.

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman will get more information when he is able to study it a little more at leisure. I considered very carefully the question of whether one could issue a White Paper, but it is very difficult, because there is a very great range of economies coming into force at different times, and also past economies have to be brought in. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that one could not issue a White Paper without making it an enormously voluminous document. I think the matter will, of course, be opened out in Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put into my statement as much detail as I could, and I think it is quite sufficient for a Debate.

Mr. Eden: I should like to put this further point—are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to open the Debate? If that is so, will he fill in some of these figures and give us more information than we now possess?

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is the Prime Minister not aware that some of the very largest of the private gains made today are not so much from distributed profits as from capital gains, whether made on the Stock Exchange or by company conversions, none of which pay anything at all to the Treasury towards the national income? Is anything to be done about that matter, and also with regard to the


very great outpouring of bonus issues, all of which should be taken into consideration for equitable treatment?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend's point, like so many other points that are being made, are points which would be better made in Debate than by question and answer.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us one figure showing the effect of his proposals upon this year's estimated Budget surplus?

The Prime Minister: I really cannot, straight away.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), on the subject of the cost of defence, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider initiating discussions with America and the Western Union Powers in order to see whether the cost of defence can be more equitably shared than it is at present?

The Prime Minister: We are discussing the whole question of defence with our friends.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Prime Minister cannot give the figure for which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) asked, can he say whether the real surplus anticipated in the Budget will be attained or will be exceeded?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say anything further on that point—no one could—than the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a sense of disappointment and frustration in the minds of productive workers who are being called upon to produce more, that no mention has been made at all of some method of taking the extra profit from those who will get it as a result of increased production?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right inference from the Prime Minister's statement that there will be no saving in the sphere of the National Health Service except in the matter of prescriptions?

The Prime Minister: Oh, no. Other economies are being made. Economies are being made all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"]

Mr. Yates: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction that there is not to be a review of the National Service scheme, will the Prime Minister really consider this great drain upon manpower, especially in the industrial areas, and cause a review to be made?

The Prime Minister: I have already pointed out that a complete review is being made of the whole question of the Forces.

Mr. David Eccles: Are we to understand that the price of feedingstuffs is to go up at once? If so, is that considered to be a good dollar saver?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what I did not say. I said that the subsidy would be withdrawn and the whole matter considered in February.

Mrs. Nichol: is the Prime Minister aware that there are still, in spite of the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, large sums lost to the revenue by the heavy expenses returned by some industrialists?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates) that the Government will, in fact, review military conscription?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that specifically. I said that we were reviewing the whole question and that it will fall into its place in the general defence of the country.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the obvious interest now taken by a very large section of the House in the complicated statement that the Prime Minister has made, may I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he really thinks that at this time in our national history a two-day Debate will be sufficient, and whether he would review the decision of last week to have only two days?

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter was the subject of interchanges last Thursday. I think that the position that I then took up is still reasonable in the light of the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Eden: Might I ask the Lord President of the Council, the Prime Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider once again between now and Wednesday this question of the White Paper? I would ask them and their own supporters to consider whether the information we have now got is of a kind which enables us intelligently to apply our minds to the topic. I do not think it is, and I would ask the Government to reconsider that matter.

The Prime Minister: I really do think it is. We have given this matter a good deal of consideration.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the fact that the crisis which is disturbing the country is not one of the overall balance of payments but a dollar crisis, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is convinced that his proposals will cure that dollar crisis, in view of two facts? One is the recession in America coming on and due to strikes. The second is that we have no other market in which we can get dollars.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: As the reduction in the housing programme is to be achieved without any reduction in local authority building, which is the less economical kind of the two forms of housing, would the Prime Minister say what measures have been concerted or considered for effecting economies in local authority building costs?

The Prime Minister: All those matters are really matters for debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that old-age pensioners are not to be charged the 1s. for prescriptions, may I ask whether the same conditions will apply to the sick who are unemployed?

Mr. Henry Strauss: In view of the Prime Minister's statement that he wished to encourage national savings, can he forthwith repudiate the statement made by the Minister of Health that people's money will be redistributed by way of retribution?

Mr. Warbey: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the obvious desire of a large number of Members to discuss the big issues raised by the Prime Minister's statement, he can allow us some extra time on Wednesday evening by suspending the Rule?

Mr. K. Lindsay: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question: in view of the fact that this is going to be, in effect, a vote of confidence and that we are bound to get some repetition of the type of speech that we had in the last Debate, may I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will reconsider the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? In other words, will he consider whether we can have a three-day Debate, preceded by a White Paper, so that this matter can be thoroughly examined, in view of its importance? I ask this as one who is glad that we are not, having a Geddes Axe. We want to examine the matter thoroughly. Otherwise, it will be a farce.

Mr. H. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has dealt with the point about the White Paper. If the hon. Member thinks that the Debate will be a repetition of the last one that is still less a reason for extending the Debate. I really think, in all the circumstances, we shall deal with the matter adequately in two days. With regard to the point in the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), I think it is a reasonable request. We would propose to suspend the Rule for one hour on Wednesday.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: As the Prime Minister says that it is impossible to issue a White Paper, are we to assume that the Government did not have before them the full implications of the Prime Minister's statement worked out in detail? If that material is available, why is it not available to the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. There was a vast mass of detail which it is difficult to bring into a White Paper.

Hon. Members: Why?

Sir Hugh O'Neill: As this announcement is bound to have a very marked effect upon the budgetary situation, is it the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce an autumn Budget before Christmas?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I support most strongly the plea for more time? The request has now come from both


sides of the House. If we cannot have three days, can we at least have a two hours' extension on Wednesday and Thursday?

Mr. Morrison: I think that 11 o'clock is late enough. I really think we shall get a better Debate that way than by going on until midnight.

Mr. John E. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend review the decision which he has just taken with regard to an extension? Is it not evident, in the light of their contributions to the problem at the recent Earls Court conference, that the Tories opposite are quite unable to sustain the Debate for more than one day?

Mr. Keeling: As the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives of revenue and expenditure in his yearly Budget are supported by Estimates which go down to the smallest detail, will the Prime Minister again consider whether—or would he say now why—the figures which he has given today cannot be supported by details in the same way?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows well that there are laid before the House very detailed Estimates. He would not expect those all to be repeated. These figures will appear in the Estimates in due course.

Mr. Eden: That will be next year.

Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this reduction of about £250 million which he has proposed will be a net reduction, or will it be overtaken and swamped by other aspects and elements of national expenditure?

The Prime Minister: It is intended to be a net reduction.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very serious character of this matter, I want to ask you if you will very seriously consider calling the Motion which my colleague and I are going to put down, because it will be in opposition and will give one or other of the Ministers an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not ask my intentions in advance. When I see the various Motions on the Order Paper I will consider them and see whether I shall call any or none.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 159.

Division No. 256.]
AYES
[4.15 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bramall, E. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Albu, A H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Deer, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dobbie, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Bruoe, Maj. D. W. T.
Dodde, N. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burden, T. W.
Donovan, T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Ayles, W. H.
Byers, Frank
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Champion, A. J.
Dye, S.


Balfour, A.
Chater, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edelman, M.


Barstow, P. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Barton, C.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Battley, J. R.
Collick, P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Beswick, F.
Cooper, G.
Ewart, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fairhurat, F.


Bavin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Cove, W. G.
Farthing, W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crawky, A.
Fernyhough, E.


Binns, J.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Daggar, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Daines, P.
Foot, M. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gallacher, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.




George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville


Gibbins, J.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P.


Gooch, E. G.
Mack, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
McLeavy, F.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skinnard, F. W.


Grey, C. F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gunter, R. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Guy, W. H.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Steele, T.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hardman, D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Harrison, J.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Haworth, J.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Henderson, Rt, Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hicks, G.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Marry (Clayton)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nally, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Horabin, T. L.
Naylor, T. E.
Tolley, L.


Houghton, Douglas
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hoy, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Usborne, Henry


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, S. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Panned, T. C.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Parker, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
West, D. G.


Jenkins, R. H.
Pearson, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Johnston, Douglas
Piratin, P.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Popplewell, E.
Wigg, George


Keenan, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilkes, L.


Kenyon, C.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wilkins, W. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, M. Philips
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


King, E. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)


Kinghorn, Sqn-Ldr. E.
Ranger, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lang, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Robens, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wise, Major F. J.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wyatt, W.


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Yates, V. F.


Lipson, D. L.
Royle, C.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scollan, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Logan, D. G.
Scott-Elliot, W.



Longden, F.
Segal, Dr. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Butcher, H. W.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Drewe, C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Carson, E.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Asshetan, Rt. Hon. R.
Challen, C.
Duthie, W. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Channon, H.
Eccles, D. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter


Beechman, N. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Erroll, F. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fox, Sir G.


Birch, Nigel
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gage, C.


Bower, N.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gammans, L. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
De la. Bère, R.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Digby, S. Wingfield
George,. Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Donner, P. W.
Glyn, Sir R.







Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gridley, Sir A.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Grimston, R. V.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Marples, A. E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Haughton, S. G.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Smithers, Sir W.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Spence, H. R.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Hope, Lord J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Sloddart-Scott, Col. M.


Howard, Hon. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Hurd, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Motl-Radelyffe, C. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jarvls, Sir J.
Nicholson, G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Teeling, William


Keeling, E. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Nutting, Anthony
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Odey, G. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Langford-Holt, J.
Osborne, C.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Ugge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, H. N.
Pickthorn, K.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Low, A. R. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Prescott, Stanley
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Price-White, D.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)



McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such moneys under the provisions of the said Act relating to the powers and duties of associations established under section one of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, or that section as applied under any subsequent enactment, and of any increase attributable to the said provisions in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section three of the said Act of 1907 or that section as so applied.

Orders of the Day — AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF TERRITORIAL ARMY ASSOCIATIONS FOR TWO OR MORE COUNTIES.)

4.25 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after "established," to insert:
with the joint consent of, but only with the joint consent of the existing Associations concerned.
This is a drafting Amendment to give effect to what was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. I understood the Minister to accept the request that amalgamation would not take place save
with the joint consent of the existing Associations concerned.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I take no exception to the principle embodied in this Amendment but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be content if I give him an assurance, on behalf of the three Services and of all those concerned, that there will be no attempt at enforcement in this matter. There appears to be some difficulty in relating this Amendment to the Subsection. We shall take into account the circumstances that prevail but there is no intention on our part to compel the Auxiliary and Territorial associations to do other than they desire.

Colonel Dower: Nobody can take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has said because he has really given us all that is in the Amendment. The only thing is that it will not appear in the Bill. Is it not possible for the Minister to think out some words such as "after consultation with the Associations" to show that this absolute power of the Army Council will never be exercised?

Major Legge-Bourke: We appreciate the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has offered the Committee. Certainly we are grateful to hear that there is no question of any compulsion in this matter. Speaking rather locally, however, there has been concern shown by the Cambridgeshire Association on this matter because there was an attempt made before the war to amalgamate the Suffolk and the Cambridgeshire areas. It is just as well that did not materialise in view of what the associations had to do when war broke out.
We appreciate greatly the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given but it would help to set the minds of people at rest if he could indicate what areas he has in mind as possible ones for future amalgamation. I imagine he has in mind some of the Scottish areas. I hope he can give an assurance that so far as England is concerned he has none in mind at the moment.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I, too, welcome the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman and I am not certain that I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friends who think that some alteration should be made to the wording. Without any intention of forcing the hands of the associations in a general way, there might conceivably be cases where it was obviously in the public interest to amalgamate the associations of two counties and where some question of county feeling might arise which would cause that to be opposed by one of them.
With reference to the suggestion that two such counties as Cambridgeshire and Suffolk should be amalgamated, I feel certain that would not be a case which the War Office would insist upon enforcing. Yet there are some counties which are so small in area and population that it is uneconomic to have an association to administer the small Territorial Force


which may exist. Supposing, for some reason of county pride or amour propre, one of those little counties were to stand out, I can see that it might be necessary to say that in the interests of economy—we all realise that to be an important interest—the wishes of such a county must be overridden in order to effect an amalgamation, though I hope it would not be done in an inconsiderate or arbitrary manner. For that reason, I think that the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman covers the point made by my right hon. Friend in moving the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel Dower: May I say this to my hon. and gallant Friend? It is proposed to leave power in the hands of the Army Council, if necessary, to force an amalgamation. The insertion of my proposed words, however, would make it clear that they must consult the county associations and pay due respect to their views.

Mr. Shinwell: Despite what the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) has said, I must stand by what I have already said. The assurance I have given is that there is no intention to force amalgamation. It may be, as the hon. and gallant Member said, that the amalgamation of one county association with another may be desirable. We must, however, pay regard to Territorial tradition, and I am quite satisfied that no successor of mine would ever dare to force an amalgamation on to county Territorial associations who rejected the idea. It would be quite improper to do so. It will be quite adequate if I stand by the assurance I have given.

Earl Winterton: Unless any of my hon. Friends or any hon. Member in the rest of the Committee wishes to engage further in this most interesting discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any Lieutenant of a County who has not been appointed President of the Association established for that County jointly with one or more other Counties shall be invited to be a Vice-President of that Association.

I hope that the Government will regard this Amendment as a matter of drafting more than anything else. In view of the fact that it has been an honourable prerogative of lord lieutenants of counties to be chairmen of county associations, I hope that the proposal contained in the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Shinwell: I accept the principle embodied in the Amendment, but it will require redrafting. We shall have to deal with this matter, therefore, in another place.

Earl Winterton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order that it may be redrafted accordingly.

Colonel Dower: If the Minister will refer to the Territorial and Reserve Forces-Act, 1907, he will see that the Section dealing with the power of setting up a county association states that such schemes shall provide
for constituting the lieutenant of the county, or failing him such other person as the Army Council may think fit, president of the association:
Under that Act, therefore, it was by no means compulsory upon the Army Council to appoint the lieutenant of the county to be president. I am strongly in favour that in almost every case the lieutenant of the county should be appointed and that, in the case of an amalgamation, the lieutenant of the county who is not the president should be invited to be vice-president. At the same time, I do not see how the Amendment can be accepted so long as the Act of 1907 does not force the Army Council to appoint the lieutenant of the county to be president but merely gives discretionary power.

Mr. Shinwell: It is precisely for that reason that I propose to have this matter redrafted when the Bill goes to another place.

Earl Winterton: Let me say how useful has been the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend in strengthening my case that this question should be dealt with elsewhere.

Mr. Vane: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reserve discretion to make it possible to exclude from the holding of these offices pacifists who may be appointed lords lieutenant.


Instances of this kind have arisen in the past and have caused great offence locally.

Mr. Shinwell: That is not for me to determine, but no doubt precautions will be taken to ensure that none but the right kind of persons are appointed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would not have risen but for the reference to pacifists. The hon. Member was speaking of ex-pacifists. There should be a great differentiation between pacifists and ex-pacifists, because—

The Chairman: Order! I doubt whether the question of either pacifists or ex-pacifists comes within the scope of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATIONS.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "Army Council," and to insert:
the competent Naval, Air Force or Military Authority.
Under the Clause any scheme prepared under Section I of the 1907 Act must provide for the appointment by the Army Council as members of the association of representatives of the Sea Cadet Corps. It appears rather remarkable at first sight that the Army Council should appoint the representatives of the Sea Cadet Corps. Should not they be appointed by the Admiralty? That is why we put down the Amendment, which is, I hope, a form of words satisfactory to enable the Admiralty to play the part which they should play with regard to the Sea Cadet Corps in appointing representatives under one of these schemes.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): Even after the passage of the Bill the actual administration of the Sea Cadet Corps will remain in the hands of the Sea Cadet Council as at present. The functions which the Admiralty will perform in connection with Territorial associations under the Bill will be very slight, mainly advisory and only at their request. It would not be reasonable, therefore, to impose upon them what would really be the unnecessary burden of having to appoint members of the associations.
Furthermore, as the hon. and learned Member will be aware, his Amendment would embrace also the Royal Air Force, provision for which is already made in Clause 7. In view, therefore, of the fact that this part of the Bill deals only with associations which have responsibilities for the Territorial Army, and as the actual administration of the Sea Cadet Corps will continue as at present, I trust the hon. and learned Member will agree that the Amendment is not necessary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not entirely satisfied by that explanation, but at least one thing is clear: the Under-Secretary is apprised of the point which we desire to raise. I do not propose now to press the Amendment, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to think the matter over in case some change to give effect to the point I have raised may be desirable in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I wish to support what my hon. Friends have said. Some similar arrangement should apply to the Air Cadet Corps as to the Sea Cadet Corps and I see no reason why the Under-Secretary should withhold that. No extra work would be involved in doing what the Amendment asks, and I ask him to reconsider it.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite understood the point. This is not going to give the associations administrative responsibility for running the Sea Cadet Corps, but in areas where there happen to be joint activities of the Sea Cadet Corps and cadet forces of the Army and the Air Force, this would apply. That is why it is unnecessary to incorporate the Amendment in the Bill. Reference has been made to what the Admiralty wants in this connection. The Admiralty, however, are entirely satisfied that their position is fully safeguarded under the Bill as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(POWERS AND DUTIES OF ASSOCIATIONS.)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out the first "Corps," and to insert "Force."
This is a drafting Amendment in order to use the proper nomenclature for the Army Cadet Force.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the beginning, to insert: "Subject as hereinafter provided."
The joint effect of this Amendment and of the two Amendments immediately following is to arrange that when payments which the Admiralty may occasionally make to associations for services performed by associations to the Admiralty are made, a proper apportioning shall be made of expenditure between the Army Council and the Admiralty. By a curiosity of drafting, the Clause as it stands would have the entirely unintended result that all the expenses of the associations would fall on the Admiralty. Clearly that is not what was desired, and the purpose of the Amendment is to see that where an association is performing services for the Admiralty there shall be a proper apportioning of expenditure.
The services are not expected to be very great and, mainly, they will be of an advisory character. Where the Royal Marine Reserve are concerned, the services may be rather greater and may involve providing facilities for training and, where such a situation arises, through the membership of the association opportunity will be provided for the interests of the Admiralty and of the Royal Marine Reserve to be expressed.

Earl Winterton: I have no objection whatever to the Clause or the Amendment, nor have my hon. Friends, but, as we are in such a mellow mood, no doubt induced by a previous announcement, may I say that I object to the phrase, "owing to a curiosity of drafting." I should say that it was a case of the Minister not having read the Bill properly before it was presented to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 28, leave out "the last foregoing subsection," and insert "this section."

In line 41, at end, insert:
( ) In calculating the payments to be made to an association by the Admiralty under the last foregoing subsection or by the Army Council under subsection (1) of section

three of the Act of 1907, regard shall be had only to expenditure incurred by the association in connection with the exercise and discharge of powers and duties relating to matters under the control of the Admiralty or the Army Council, as the case may be; and the Admiralty and the Army Council shall make any apportionment of expenditure necessary for the purposes of this subsection."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is one curiosity about which I want to inquire. It is in relation to the word "military" in line 14. The word "military" is not defined in the Bill, nor, as far as I am aware, is it defined in any Statute. I spent a little time this morning trying to find if it had been defined elsewhere, but without success. In one sense, military can be used to apply to any militant operation, but normally it could not be used to include any naval operation, although it might include Air Force operations. The question arises under subsection (1) of this Clause as to the precise meaning to be attached to the word.
4.45 p.m.
Is it merely intended to make reference to Section 2 of the 1907 Act and to the organisation of the Territorial Army, or to make reference to the organisation of His Majesty's Army? If that is the intention, I suggest that the words "military forces" should be taken out and the word "Army" put in. That seems much more easily understood and economises in the use of words. Economy is very important in these days. That would make quite clear the precise significance of the expression, but I think "military forces" is a very unusual expression in an Act of Parliament. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary can inform us if there is any precedent for the use of such an expression in an Act.

Mr. M. Stewart: To my knowledge there is not a precedent. What I believe the phrase means in this connection would be the Regular Army, the Reserve and Territorial Forces and, should it be created again at some future date, the Home Guard. It is, therefore, somewhat wider in meaning than "the Army." I think it would be agreed that even where there is not an exact legal precedent we must be guided by the normal and


accepted usage of words. It would cover all the things I have mentioned, but would not be regarded as covering naval forces. Whether it is regarded as covering air forces does not matter, because they are dealt with in another part of the Bill, and because there is another part of the Bill referring to the Royal Air Force and associations administering the Royal Air Force equivalent to the Territorial Army it is made clear that we are not dealing with the Royal Air Force here. To alter this reference to "Army" might put it in too narrow a framework.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I think it a pity this Committee should have to pass a Clause of the Bill containing words about the meaning of which the Government are not quite sure. The hon. Gentleman told us what he believed the reference meant. Cannot he put in an additional definition in the last Clause but one of the Bill? Secondly, if the Government intend that the Territorial associations only shall have to.
conform to the plan of the Army Council for the organisation of the territorial army within the area for which the association is constituted) for the reference to the territorial army there shall be substituted a reference to all His Majesty's military forces.
I think they are very old fashioned. It is about time they were forced to be made aware of the plans of the Air Force and the Royal Navy and the Civil Defence, as well as the Home Guard, and what effect they would have on their own. Since we are passing a Bill amending the old Territorial Army Act it would be useful to impose an obligation more in keeping with the spirit of the day. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it is enormously important that all the forces should consider themselves part of a great whole and it is a pity to use such restrictive words here. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, first as to the definition and let us have a word whose meaning we really know and, secondly, if an obligation is to be imposed it should be a proper, up-to-date obligation dealing with the whole of the Defence Forces of the Crown.
Under subsection (4, a), there is mention of the association having regard to the principal industries of the area. I should like to be assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the phrase "principal industries" includes such bodies as

chambers of commerce, etc., which deal with activities which are not strictly industries but the members of which are important as employers of men who play a big part in the Territorial Army, particularly in some services such as signals.

Mr. Vane: I wish to raise another question connected with the powers and duties of associations about which I am not quite clear from this Clause. In 1907 our attitude to the Army was much more static. In consequence the original Territorial Army Associations had very wide powers of administration given to them to deal with all units in their counties. Today it can be a great difficulty and a hindrance where a Territorial Army association is responsible for all the administration of units in its area, including units under the command of a formation with a peacetime headquarters and staff.
For example, at the present time, unless the power of T.A. associations is taken away by this Clause—I am not quite sure—the quartermaster of a Territorial Army battalion has to keep duplicate clothing and equipment ledgers, one for enlisted Territorial men and another for Regular N.C.O.s and men attached to them for duty. That is most confusing and a great waste of time. Not only is it duplication in peacetime but it causes confusion when a unit is embodied. We found out that mistake in 1939. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear this up and ensure that when units are raised which are definitely intended to be part of fighting formations they shall be administered for rations, clothing and equipment and normal services—but not, of course, for quartering—by their divisional staffs so that there shall no longer be divided responsibility between formations and T.A. associations.

Earl Winterton: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the points which my hon. Friends have raised, with which I am in complete agreement, I should like to affirm, as the oldest member of a Territorial association in this House—I was a member of a county territorial association in 1908—that this Clause, although there is nothing about it which is new—it was done in the days of the Coalition Government—derives from a long fight on the part of the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadets and, in later years, by the Air Cadets to be given official cognisance by the military


authorities. It is only a variation of what was done at the time of the National Government, but it is of importance now, when, after long years of effort on the part of some of us, official recognition is being given to these most valuable bodies which have done so much for the youth and the defence of the country.

Mr. Shinwell: The point raised by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) is one which is, at any rate, worthy of investigation, not on a very high plane but at all events for the purpose of satisfying myself if not the hon. Member. I should have thought that the point was quite clear. The term "military," so far as it relates to this provision, can be defined as meaning that the Army is responsible for all the functions that pertain to the Army, in other words that the Army Council should be responsible for all the functions that pertain to the Army Council, whatever they may be, at any particular time. At one time it may have functions which are confined exclusively to the care of the Army itself, but there may be occasions when it is necessary to extend those functions. Then the term "military" would be regarded in its more comprehensive sense.
I would direct the attention of the hon. Member to the provision which one might regard as a definition in Clause 17 (3), which states:
In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
Act of 1907' has the meaning assigned to it by section one of this Act;
It is quite clear. It continues:
'competent military authority'"—
which is the point at issue—
means the Army Council or an officer designated by the Army Council;
then it is stated:
'competent naval authority' means the Admiralty or an officer designated by the Admiralty.
It would seem to me that this creates the necessary distinction between the naval authority and the military authority and should suffice for the purpose. As everybody is aware, it is not always possible to achieve a strict and rigid definition which clearly conveys the precise meaning and intent. We have to make the best of the language which we employ. Some

employ language more eloquent and more comprehensive than others; others are a little impoverished in the use of language. I will look at the point and if further definition is required that will be included at a later stage.
The hon. Member raised a point about the "principal industries" which have to be consulted and possibly included in the associations. He asked whether these included chambers of commerce. I should not care to say off-hand, but in so far as chambers of commerce and chambers of trade—there are a great many chambers of the kind associated with industry—are representative bodies, there is no reason why they should be excluded. The Territorial Forces Association will no doubt have due regard to the importance of those bodies and take action accordingly.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) asked me a question. I confess that I did not gather what he actually meant. If he regards it as being of importance he will doubtless put it again. If he regards it of less importance perhaps he will leave the matter to be dealt with on another occasion.

Mr. Vane: I naturally regarded the matter as of importance when I troubled the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee with it. Very shortly, at the present time the administration of the Territorial unit is complicated by the fact that it is administered in two ways. I gave as an example clothing and equipment. Territorial Army associations are frequently responsible for all Territorial personnel, whereas the Regular N.C.Os. and men attached are administered entirely differently. I suggested that where a unit forms part of the order of battle of a formation it should be administered in peace-time as in war, which would do away with a great deal of difficulty and overlapping.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. Member. It was my fault that I did not comprehend his meaning. That is a technical matter, however, which has nothing to do with the Bill. It is a matter of administration, and if there is any substance in the point which the hon. Member raised I will certainly do what I can to put the matter right.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to say something about the legal opinions which


were given by the Secretary of State for War. I think he ought to have engaged in a little more study. Seldom have I heard such a curious view put forward as to the meaning of the adjective "military."
5.0 p.m.
First of all, his argument was that when one used the word "military" in the statute it related to something with which the Army Council was connected. I have never used the word "military" in that sense. The Army Council does not immediately spring to one's mind when one uses the word. He went on to imply that this word "military" in line 14 on page 4 is quite all right, because really there is something which might amount to an explanation of it, a definition of it, in the definition Clause, which is Clause 17. If we look at Clause 17 again we find that there is not a definition of the expression "military forces." All we have is a definition of the expressions "competent military authority" and "competent naval authority." There is no definition, however one reads Clause 17, or how often one reads it, of the expression "military forces."
This is a point which is of a little importance because here, under subsection (1) of Clause 3, we are in fact altering the tasks and the duties of the associations. We are entitled to ask, and I think they are entitled to ask, that the alteration should be effected with precision. As I have indicated, I would agree that I do not think that "military" would be taken to include "naval." That view, if it is supported at all, might be said to be supported by that bit in the definition Clause; but in some cases, as the Financial Secretary has said, it may be taken to imply air operations. He went on to say that he believed that it did not because there was a later part of this Bill dealing with the Air Force. To me that certainly was not a very cogent argument.
While I agree that this Bill in its present form in Section 3 really lacks definition—we are using, as the Parliamentary Secretary admits, an expression without precedent in any Act of Parliament—all I am urging upon the right hon. Gentleman is that if he sticks to the words "military forces," that novel expression, then at least he ought to give an undertaking that he will insert in the definition

Clause a definition of what he means by it, because it certainly is not clear to this Committee. After what he and the Under-Secretary have said I do not think it will be clear to the associations or the country what exactly are the limits of the burden and tasks which the associations are being asked to fulfil. I think my request is a simple one and I have put it forward as clearly as I can. I hope that he will not divert attention from this important point by referring to other parts of this interesting Bill which have no relation to it.

Mr. Low: May I offer a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? He never replied to me on the other point that the obligations placed on the Territorial Associations in these days of the mid-twentieth century, ought really to conform to the plans of all His Majesty's Defence Forces; not just the Army Council, but the Air Force, the Navy, Civil Defence and the Home Guard. If he were to agree with me—and even if not—as he is in such difficulty with the meaning of words would he consider re-drafting the last few words of this Clause to have the same effect as if the word "military" were excluded? I think that would meet the wishes of everybody and would not put the right hon. Gentleman in the difficulty which he is now in, of using a word of which he does not know the meaning.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I wish to support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). The Minister did say it was a technical point, but if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Air he will find that there is a most efficient way of dealing with the Department through the unit. I suggest that he consult with his, colleague and learn something about it.

Mr. Shinwell: That may be, but it still remains an administrative matter. Now that my attention has been drawn to it I shall make the necessary inquiries. If there is any defect in the organisation in the provision of equipment, or clothing, or any of the requirements of the Territorial Forces, which requires rectification, I shall see that it is attended to. But I must make the necessary inquiries.
As regards the point of substance raised by two hon. Members opposite, I am advised that what is asked for is contained in subsections (1) and (2) of


Clause 3. If hon. Members opposite will look at subsection (1) they will see that under the Act of 1907 it is:
the duty of an association to be acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Army Council"—
there a specific duty is laid upon it—
for the organisation of the territorial army …
Now we go on to refer to
all His Majesty's Forces.
That is the change which is proposed. Then, in subsection (2), the latter part says:
… and references in that subsection to His Majesty's military forces shall be construed accordingly.
I should have thought that was quite adequate for the purpose of definition, but it may well be there is some slight defect with regard to interpretation. I shall look at the matter to see if anything further is required. Perhaps with that assurance hon. Members opposite will allow the Clause to pass.

Dr. Haden Guest: Would it not be a simple solution to substitute for the word "military" the word "defence" so that it would read "His Majesty's defence forces" which would include Civil Defence, the Home Guard and everything else?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that would hardly suit. That creates further complications which at this stage I am very reluctant to consider.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 22 to 24.
This Amendment would delete paragraph (c) from Clause 5. I believe it is most apposite that it should be moved today in view of the fact that we are considering possible cuts in military expenditure. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the whole question of the structure of the Army would come under consideration, but here we are giving to the War Office in the future a blank cheque for unlimited expenditure. I think

that this Clause should define more specifically where Territorials are to be sent and how many should be sent overseas.
This Clause reverses the whole conception of the Territorial Army. When this Bill received a Second Reading I remember that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) indulged in some interesting reminiscences regarding the origin of the Territorial Army in the days of Lord Haldane. In those days the conception of Lord Haldane was that the Territorial Army should be an army for the defence of this country and the defence of the homes of the people. That was to be the appeal to the people, that they were to join the Territorials in order to defend themselves against any possible attack.
This Bill completely reverses that whole conception, and we now have a definition that the future Territorial is to serve:
in any place outside the United Kingdom.
which is about the widest possible definition that could be given. The Territorials of the future may be sent to any sphere of operations in which the Minister of Defence may be interested. Under this Clause the Territorial—if this Bill was now in operation—would be called upon to go to Hong Kong.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this actually happened during the last war? Territorials and members of the Auxiliary Air Force fought in all parts of the world as a result, I think, of an Order in Council.

Mr. Hughes: If it happened in the last war that is an additional reason why it should not happen again. In appeals which presumably are to be made to strengthen the Territorial Army, are the people to be told, "Join the Territorials in order to be sent to Hong Kong to fight Chinese Communists"? The Territorial is no longer to be called upon to fight for his home territory. He is, one assumes, to be asked to enrol for the purpose of fighting Communism whether it be in China, Africa or any other part of the world.
I believe that if campaigns for the recruitment of Territorials are to be conducted on the assumption that the potential Territorial is to be called upon to serve in Vladivostok, Central Africa, Hong Kong or anywhere else, in this


new ideological conception of war, they will be more miserable affairs than they have been so far. I suggest that we are giving a future Government an unlimited opportunity of enlarging upon the military organisation and indulging in expensive military operations on the slightest excuse in any part of the world.
Is this future Territorial Army to be sent to Aqaba, and why? Is it to be sent to Hong Kong or Malaya? Have we come to the state of affairs in which the Territorial Army is to have unlimited commitments? At a time when every intelligent person is calling upon the Government to reduce their commitments, here we have this little Bill with this Clause which makes our commitments absolutely unlimited. The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be called to this provision. There should be the most careful financial scrutiny of what we are doing in putting this Clause upon the Statute Book.
I should like to know why the number of men to be sent abroad should not be more specifically defined. In our military Estimates we are always called upon to supply a limited number of men. During the last 20 years I have followed those Estimates very carefully. I find that there was always some specific mention of a definite number of men. For example, I find that in a discussion on the Territorial Army in 1936, Members of the Government who were then in Opposition objected very strongly to the number of men in the Territorial Army and the Regular Army being more than 158,400. When the detailed consideration of the Bill was reached, an Amendment was moved from the Labour Benches demanding that the number should be reduced to 152,600. I do not wish to quote from the speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but one can find there a very eloquent speech—in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 12th March, 1936—by a certain Major Milner who wished to reduce the Army from 158,400 by 4,000—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is going very much too wide. I do not think that he should refer to the Chairman of Ways and Means now.

Mr. Hughes: I did not understand that it was him. I thought that this gentleman was dead. His arguments should be

read because they happen to be most apposite to this point. I will not proceed further with it except to suggest that if the Labour Party considered that 152,600 men was sufficient for the Army in 1936, there is no need now to pass a Bill in which we allow for unlimited commitments and unlimited expenditure.

5.15 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I shall, of course, support the Government in resisting this Amendment. Though I differ from the views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on every conceivable question, I should like to pay him a tribute. I think that he always puts his case fairly and courteously. He called attention to one point which is worthy of reference because questions of substance arise. It is true that he said, by inference, that Lord Haldane would never have got his Bill through this House if there had been a liability for foreign service on Territorials.
I did not want to say anything against the Liberal Party, especially in view of the fact that, as usual, none of them is here. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."] One out of eleven—that is a tribute to their great interest in defence. In those days the Liberal Party were very pacifist. Indeed, when anybody ventured to tell them, as I did on more than one occasion, that they would be faced with a war within a few years, they all waved their arms and screeched as hon. Gentlemen opposite do sometimes in this House. I believe that Lord Haldane would have liked such a liability but I understand that he was over-ruled.
In the 1914–18 war the Government were faced with a difficulty. In units like the one in which I served, when the Government wanted to send men overseas in 1915, before National Service had been introduced, they had to call for volunteers. That was a most undesirable state of affairs. In some regiments a number of men would not go abroad and they were drafted to home service. Fortunately, they were made to go abroad when conscription was introduced. In 1916, when conscription was brought in, everybody was liable to go abroad. I think that I am right in saying that between the wars there was not this liability upon Territorials to go abroad.

Mr. Shinwell: Without embodiment.

Earl Winterton: No.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that the noble Lord is quite correct. Without special legislation they could not be sent abroad.

Earl Winterton: In the original Act, Lord Haldane gave an undertaking that men when called up would not be sent abroad. Therefore, when the Government wanted to send them abroad they could only do it by asking for volunteers. That was a most undesirable state of affairs which was due purely to the pacifism of the Liberal Party at the time who made it difficult to get the Bill through this House. Similarly, between the wars there was no power to send them. The difficulty was got over, I understand, by Order in Council.
Fortunately, there is now general agreement between both sides of the Committee on the question of defence. I will not say that that is a tribute to our intelligence and patriotism or a tribute to the Government. It confers equal credit on both sides. It is most excellent that the Government will now have power under this Bill to do something which should have been done as long ago as 1908 when the first Territorial Army Act was brought in, because otherwise it is most difficult for the Defence Departments to proceed.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is perfectly entitled to attack me because he is a pacifist. He objects to all forms of National Service. I know that it is wrong either to agree or disagree with the Chair, but I listened with interest, Mr. Bowles, when you suggested that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was going rather wide of the point when he referred to the question of Communists in China. I agree that he is perfectly entitled to oppose this Clause. I apologise for speaking for so long, and I conclude by saying that I am delighted that after all these years it is proposed to put this provision into an Act of Parliament.

Dr. Haden Guest: May I say how much I was interested in the historical retrospect of the noble Lord, which I would venture to supplement in one respect by pointing out that the volunteering for the Territorial Army which took place during the first world war was so rapid that, at a very early stage of the operations, I

found myself, in a hospital in France in September or October, 1914, with a number of Territorials under treatment. In practice, if we gave an opportunity to the Territorial Army, the difficulty would be to keep them away from the fighting if it were necessary to defend our shores.
I rose because I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. I disagree with him on several grounds. First, on the grounds of expense. If the hon. Gentleman thinks this will make for increased expenditure on military account, may I remind him that, on the contrary, if the Territorials were prevented from going overseas—and, in these days of rapid transit and of air transport, the difference between this side of the Channel and the other is a matter of very little geographical importance from that point of view—if they were prevented from going abroad, it would merely mean that steps would have to be taken to recruit an increased number of other men on a conscription basis. There would therefore be increasing expenditure, and I can quite easily see that that might be a very serious matter.
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great respect, referred to the question of avoiding war, but that is a matter of foreign policy and quite a different matter from the one we are discussing. It is not a question of the technical management of the Armed Forces at all. What we must not forget is that, if we are to have Armed Forces, they must be competent and well equipped. Personally, I welcome very much indeed this part of the Clause which the hon. Gentleman wishes to delete, because it will be more economical and will lead to greater efficiency, particularly in regard to its possible effect on the supply of the medical units of the Armed Forces in any future conflict. There is a great shortage of doctors, and we cannot possibly do without those doctors who have been patriotic enough to embody themselves and serve in the Territorial Army. It would be a great mistake for the hon. Gentleman to persist with his Amendment, because he would not wish to increase military expenditure. The fact is that his Amendment, if carried—and I gather that this is not very likely—would result in increased expense, and so it would be quite contrary to the effect which the hon. Gentleman himself desires.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I welcome the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in moving his Amendment, said that this Clause reversed the whole conception of the Territorial Army. It might possibly reverse some people's conceptions of the Territorial Army, but it certainly does not reverse the rôle of the Territorial Army, which in fact did serve abroad in the last two wars.
In the 1914 war, there was a call for volunteers and it certainly was a very great embarrassment to the Government of the day that the War Office at that time was unable to say with certainty what it could count upon in the way of personnel. In some cases, somebody in a Territorial Army regiment may have had the conception of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and may have caused a number of men to refuse to volunteer. That meant that a certain number, but I think only a few, of the Territorial Army units were kicking their heels about in this country doing nothing, and particularly at a time when we were in dire straits regarding the supply of adequate forces for service abroad.
It would be almost useless to have a Territorial Army only liable for service at home in these days. We want men to serve to defend this country and to keep the enemy as far away as possible from our country. The other side of the Channel is but a short distance away in these days of modern transport. In 1914, the very large majority of the men of the Territorial Army actually volunteered cheerfully and early, and their services were of very great value, not only in France, to which some units went very early in the campaign—I think in November, if not in October, 1914—but they also did admirable service in Palestine and elsewhere, while, of course, quite a considerable number of Territorial Army units were sent to India for garrison duties.
In the 1939 war, what we should have done in the early stages without some of the men of the Territorial Army is very hard to say, because they performed the most admirable services and did their duties cheerfully. Undoubtedly, a special Act was passed—or was it an Order in Council?—to make it compulsory for them to serve abroad, but the fact was that they were willing and ready to go

abroad and they did extremely well. This Clause is very necessary, and that it will in future avoid the necessity for appeals to men to volunteer. When they join, the men will know that they volunteer for general service in case of mobilisation, and the War Office and the Army authorities will be able to count on that number of men with certainty. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.

Colonel Dower: I usually listen to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with great interest, and on more than one occasion I have come into the Chamber specially to hear his oratory. Today, however, I think he must feel entirely squashed, because there is no other hon. Member of any party in the Committee who is prepared to support his Amendment. I do not intend to prolong the Debate, and only rise to make two points.
What the hon. Gentleman did not tell us was that in the Territorial Army we have the cheapest form of defence that we could have, and when the hon. Gentleman says there is extravagance he is talking sheer nonsense. Before the war, I played some part in raising quite a number of men, and I myself attested over 1,000 men who wished to join the Territorial Army. Of those 1,000 men, there was not one who was not prepared to undertake overseas service, and I am sure I can say that, if I had told them that they would not be allowed to go overseas, they would all have said, "Well, then, we shall not join the Territorial Army." We know the part which was played by those people who took part in the air defence of London in the docks and at Liverpool, and the complaints which arose from the fact that they did not have the opportunity of going overseas. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think these men have been treated too well, and that that is the reason why we are having difficulty in getting them to come forward again.
I suggest that there is no substance in the argument which the hon. Gentleman has put forward and that there is no support for this Amendment. I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can possibly substantiate his argument that this is going to be an extravagance. There is no sound argument that can be put forward on that score. I do not know what


political point of view can be found to support that argument, but I am not prepared to accept it, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not put forward that kind of argument again.

5.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like, as one of the younger generation, if I may so describe myself, to join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Gower) and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) in the tribute which they paid to the Territorial Army and to the spirit which has always existed in it. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wishes to criticise the Territorial Army campaign—and I have my own views about the Territorial Army system today—I would point out that few people have made speeches more likely to discourage that campaign than he. He has done his best to prevent people from joining the Regular Army or any other Army, and for him to criticise the Secretary of State for War for the lack of success of his campaign is, I should have thought, a criticism of himself, though he does not realise it.
At any rate, this Clause as it stands provides that those whom it is agreed at the time of enlistment shall serve at home are not affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. We surely have to realise today that unless the British Commonwealth and Empire is going to work as one concerted whole from the point of view of defence, our defence scheme will not make sense anyway. Therefore, the places to which these men will be asked to go are more likely to be parts of the Empire than elsewhere. If they are asked to go to parts of the world other than the Empire, then they can be sure that in so doing they will be defending their own country or the Empire. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will strongly resist this Amendment.

Sir Ronald Ross: There is one material point which has so far not been mentioned in connection with this matter. Many allusions have been made to the situation in 1914, but no one has mentioned that at that time the War Office had at its disposal not one, but two

Auxiliary Forces. It had the Territorial Army and also the Special Reserve, the old Militia. The men in those Forces were all liable for immediate service overseas, and, to a very great extent, the war was kept going during the winter of 1914–15 by troops from the Special Reserve battalions. The Regular Army and the Regular Reserves had been largely exhausted by the ferocious fighting in the early autumn. In the case of the Territorials at that time, of course, there had to be a delay before the men could be sent abroad however, keen they were to go. My own unit was a Special Reserve; we had all signed on to serve overseas, and, therefore, we were able to go immediately. Because of the arrangement then operating, the Territorials only started coming out to France in the autumn, and did not come out in any real numbers until the spring of 1915.
At that time—and I wish to emphasise it—the Secretary of State for War had at his command a substantial force which had been the Militia and which was then described as a Special Reserve. We have now abolished that system, and the force of Special Reserves does not now exist except in a few specialist formations, such as railway units, and so forth. It is essential that in case of war there should be some Auxilitary Force of sufficient size at the disposal of the War Office. That is a very material factor.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I imagine that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left out of his Amendment anything dealing with the Auxiliary Air Force. I would point out that if the men of the Auxiliary Air Force felt that in time of war they were not going overseas we should get very few recruits to that Force. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was a little mistaken when he said that at the beginning of the war the Auxiliary Air Force and the Territorials would have to volunteer.

Earl Winterton: I did not refer to the Auxiliary Air Force, but it is a fact that a special Order in Council was passed. That was the difficulty in the 1914 war; if a man refused to volunteer, we could do nothing about it. In point of fact, however, nearly every man volunteered until conscription came into force. As I say, in the last war they had to do it by Order in Council.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In October. 1939, members of the Auxiliary Air Force had to volunteer to go to France. In my own unit there was only one man who refused to volunteer, but he did so more on compassionate grounds than for any other reason. I do not think that if this Amendment were accepted we should get the volunteers. I welcome the Clause because the more responsibility the Territorial Army and the Auxiliary Forces can take over, the more likely we are to do away with conscription. I oppose this Amendment because I think it is malicious and intended to do harm to the Services.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has received no support for his Amendment in the Committee, I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of his views. He has a perfect right to represent opinions which he has held for a very long time. But, whether we like it or not, we have to face certain unpalatable facts which I am afraid are inescapable. One of those facts is that, unfortunately, we are living in a very disturbed and unsettled world, where tendencies of a most mischievous and dangerous character exist. We must have regard to those facts.
I do not want to argue this Amendment, or the reasons for objecting to it, at any great length. However, it affords me an opportunity of making two short declarations. The first is that I express the view which I think is held in all quarters of the Committee—not only by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—that we fervently hope that this country will never again be involved in a major war. The second is—and I make myself personally responsible for the declaration, whatever others may think—that I would never be a party to sending men into battle in a major war, or any other conflict, unless I was satisfied that they were well equipped and would be supported by the necessary reinforcements and supported at a very early stage. We have had the experiences of two great wars, and I think I am within the recollection of hon. and gallant Members when I say that on both occasions we suffered many casualties in the early stages because we had not adequate reinforcements.

Mr. Edgar Granville: And because we had not adequate equipment.

Mr. Shinwell: Or because of inadequate equipment. We ought never to take that risk again. We must provide ourselves with an adequate number of men in the early stages and, so far as we are capable of doing so, with the necessary equipment.
The purpose of the Territorial Army is two-fold; one is to defend these shores, and the other is to go to the attack if necessary. In order to go to the attack it may be necessary to go overseas. Apparently my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire imagines that there is a reluctance on the part of young men in the Territorial Army or in the Army generally, whether in the regular Army or whether they are National Service men, to go overseas. I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. Let me, within the limits of Order, relate an experience which I had quite recently in one of the depots in Scotland where I talked to a few National Service men who had entered the Army that week. They were a little unhappy and somewhat nostalgic, as one might expect. But immediately thereafter I spoke to a squad of men who had been in the Army 10 weeks and who had received their basic training. They were about to proceed overseas, and every single one of them was delighted at the prospect.
I find everywhere that young men are only too pleased to go overseas. The last thing they want to do is to remain in the United Kingdom, and certainly the very last thing they desire is to be confined to barracks. They want to get out as fast as they can. The spirit of adventure among these young men is as fine as ever it was before in this country, and we are very proud that it should be so. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend not to assume that the young men are anxious to remain at home and cling to the skirts of their mothers or their sweethearts, or whoever it may be, although no doubt they have a very great affection for them.
The purpose of this Clause is to enable us to send men overseas on embodiment. We cannot send men overseas without embodiment. The Territorial Army must first of all be embodied before action can be taken, after embodiment, to dispatch men overseas without recourse


to special legislation. It is true that special legislation has been invoked in the past; as the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) indicated, it was done after the beginning of the First World War, and it was also done in the last war. But special legislation involves delay, and in the process of invoking and carrying special legislation through Parliament many casualties may occur and much suffering may come about. That we are anxious to avoid. Thinking in terms of another great conflict may be regarded as distasteful, but unfortunately we cannot ignore these considerations.
I must advise the Committee that it does not follow that because we are asking for these powers we intend to send every member of the Territorial Army overseas. There are activities which are essential and will be confined to service in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower), who referred to the activities of Anti-aircraft Command in this last war, is well aware of what I mean. Incidentally, I am aware that there may be some dissatisfaction at the rewards which have been bestowed on the members of Anti-aircraft Command for their services in the late war. This matter is not necessarily finally disposed of. It is always under consideration, and although I am far from making any commitment, it may well be that there are sympathisers with the view that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has expressed.

Colonel Dower: I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read the book which has been written by the former Commander-in-Chief of Antiaircraft Command, Sir Frederick Pile, who deals very fully with the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not read the book, but I have quite recently had consultation with General Pile and I am aware of his views on this matter. I am sorry that I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of my hon. Friend's views or his personal integrity, but I am quite satisfied that he would not be happy even if we accepted the Amendment, because the next step he would take would be to ask us to

abolish the Army altogether, and, therefore, we would be at cross purposes.

Amendment negatived.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 6, line 37, to leave out from "may," to "by," in line 40.
Perhaps it would be convenient to deal with the next four Amendments at the same time. These Amendments all concern Clause 5 (3) and relate to the question of the power of compulsory transfer and compulsory posting. In the first place, I am sure that it is agreed in all quarters of the Committee that these powers of compulsory transfer and compulsory posting should only be used to the minimum extent that military requirements make absolutely necessary. If there should be any doubt on that point I would like to repeat the assurance that has been given both in the context of this Bill and in other contexts that it is never our intention to make wanton use of either of these powers merely because it may be administratively convenient to do so. We recognise fully the dislike that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have for the use of these powers, and the good reasons animating that dislike. It will be our constant endeavour to make no more use of them than is absolutely necessary. This subsection, therefore, and the Amendments to it are concerned with what is the maximum legal power of compulsory transfer and posting which it would be proper for Parliament to accord.
The effect of the Amendments is as follows: A man might be compulsorily transferred from the corps to which he originally belonged into another corps in a period of time when the Territorial Army was embodied, but under no other condition, and during the time of embodiment he might also be posted from one unit to another within the same corps, since of course if the greater power could be exercised, naturally the lesser power could be. When there is a period of service under Clause 5 (1, b)—that is to say, in case of actual or apprehended attack—then only the lesser power of compulsion—that is the power of compulsory posting from one unit to another within the same corps—would exist. That is the position. In time of embodiment there would be a power of compulsory


transfer and compulsory posting; in time of service under paragraph (b) there would be the power of compulsory posting.
In both cases not only is there the general safeguard which I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, that it would be our constant endeavour to make no more use of these powers than absolute necessity requires, but there is the proviso, the wording of which has to be consequentially altered by the later Amendments in this group, that where a man has been so compulsorily transferred or posted during a period of embodiment or service under paragraph (b) he has a right to require that as soon as convenient after the end of those periods all necessary steps shall be taken to get him back into the corps or unit of his choice. That is the effect of these Amendments, which follow the statements made by my right hon. Friends during the Debate on Second Reading, and I trust they will commend themselves to the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was as lone ago as 26th May that the Lord President of the Council told us that there was some public urgency that this Bill should be passed as early as possible. Relying, as one so often does, upon what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not propose to say very much this evening about these Amendments, but there are one or two observations which I feel I really should make. The first is that perhaps we should not have had to take up time in discussing these points, both on Second Reading and today, had the Association been more fully consulted before this Bill was introduced. Perhaps it has been useful to have had some part of the time which has elapsed since Second Reading, on 2nd June, for that consideration.
I do not want to appear to be in the least degree ungracious to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met the point so clearly put and so eloquently urged by my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and my hon. Friends behind me. These Amendments make a very substantial reduction in the powers of moving bodies about which were contained in the original Bill. As the Under-Secretary has said, the power of transferring a man to any Corps without his consent can now be exercised only after embodiment. As

the Bill stood it could be exercised when a person was
called out for actual military service in any place in the United Kingdom in defence of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended attack.
It is a pity that the Bill drafted in its present form was ever presented to this House. It is perhaps a pity that we have had to have so much discussion upon this Clause. At the same time, I recognise, as we on this side of the Committee do, the necessity for having that power of transfer after embodiment and that power of posting without the man's consent to any unit within the corps after that man has been called out for actual military service under subsection (1 b). We recognise that and we are glad of the assurance that has been given that there will be no wanton use of these powers. I think there is perhaps no need for me to stress the desirability of exercising these powers, conferred by this subsection, as little as possible.
In the eloquent speech to which he treated us on the previous Amendment the right hon. Gentleman referred to equipment and to men. He did not refer to training and efficiency, but there can be no doubt—and I am sure he will agree with me—that unwise exercise of the power of posting can be most detrimental both to training and to the efficiency of the unit and can, at the same time, lead to the growth, perhaps, of that feeling of being "browned off" which everyone who has had anything to do with the Army, Air Force or Navy wants so much to avoid.
I think one further observation should also be made. In the light of these Amendments, which we welcome, plans will not have to be made on the assumption that immediately after men are called out there will be extensive cross-posting. Plans will have to be made on the assumption that cross-posting will not be necessary. If they are not so made, then a great deal of chaos is likely to occur when cross-posting takes place after the men have been called up, and our preparations against actual or apprehended attack are likely to be delayed. That consideration seems to me to be a fairly effective sanction against any tendency there may be to use this power, which is obviously necessary, in any more extensive form than is absolutely required.
With those few observations, and recognising that in this instance the Secretary of State has acted wisely in accepting the views put forward from this side of the Committee, and recognising that if he would only do so more often we could get on more easily, I desire to welcome these Amendments.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I welcome the assurance which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary that this power will be exercised as little as possible, as I am sure do all my hon. Friends and as I am certain does everybody who has ever served in any branch of His Majesty's land Forces. But even though that is so, I think it will be generally agreed that this is a very unpopular power to use—unpopular with the troops, unpopular with practically everybody except possibly some A Branch staff officers, who may find it easy to put into practice. This power of transfer is a terrible blow to esprit de corps.
I shall not dwell on the fact that it is being put into force very largely in the Regular Army today. Men serve in sometimes three or four different units, different regiments, in a very short time. They hardly know to what they really belong. Putting the Regular Army out of the question, however, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the Territorial Army the principal esprit de corps, the principal loyalty, is that of their locality or their county. What they are proud of is belonging to their county or to one of their county units, and we strike a very great blow at that loyalty and that esprit de corps if we compulsorily transfer men to the regiment of some county far away.
I remember a case in the last war in which men from a north country regiment—excellent, splendid men, I am sure, proud of their own county—were transferred suddenly as a draft to a south country regiment, which was equally proud of its loyalty to its own county. These men about whom I am talking were Territorials and it was before they went abroad. These men had entirely different loyalties, an entirely different esprit de corps; they came from different parts of the kingdom and it is scarcely too much to say that in some cases they barely spoke the same language. It did

an infinity of harm, and that sort of thing will do an infinity of harm in the future.
It is a very great pity that it is found necessary to introduce this Clause enabling these transfers to be made in the Territorial Army. One cannot have a real esprit de corps in a body of troops belonging to one county, possibly in the north of England or the Midlands, which is half full of men from several other counties, all of them with a nostalgia not only for their own regiment, not only for their own battalion, but for their own county. That county spirit is a tremendously powerful thing and it is very unfortunate when it has to be disregarded. I very much regret that this power is necessary, but I welcome the assurances of the Under-Secretary that it will be used as little as possible. I hope we may depend on it that effect will be given to those assurances by all the officers and staff who will have to put this power into effect.

6.0 p.m.

Sir R. Ross: I rise to support the argument that has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). The interesting thing about these Amendments, which I think improve the Clause very much, is that they deal entirely in military terms. The Territorial Army is, above all, a territorial army. The men are recruited for a unit in the same area; they know one another; they work together; they have the spirit of their area. If there is no restriction put on the Adjutant-General's branch in drafting men from one Territorial unit to anywhere else in the United Kingdom, at least I think the movement must be within the corps. The Territorial's fondness for his own county is a very strong thing. I do not urge on the Secretary of State that he should attempt to put in any Amendment to restrict the posting of men from one part of the country to a unit in any other part of the country, but I do hope that something may be done to inculcate in A Branch, certainly the most criticised of the three branches of the Army, the need to observe this principle of leaving people with their own friends from their own localities.
I have heard of many instances—I shall not go into them, and I agree that mostly they were wartime instances—of the most fantastic cross-postings. I have even heard of Highlanders with a Cork accent


—in 1914—a very strange thing. I should like to have in the Adjutant's office and in every branch of the A Branch, large notices saying. "Are these journeys really necessary?" Occasionally one is inclined to think that for mere convenience large bodies of people from one part of the country are posted to units from other parts of the country.
Perhaps the two areas where this cross-posting is liable to be felt in a marked manner very adversely by the men are Northern Ireland and Wales; and in Wales, especially in the Welsh-speaking parts. If men are transferred from a Welsh-speaking unit—perhaps only a few individuals—into some unit which is not Welsh-speaking, and which knows not Cwmry, they are very uncomfortable. The same thing applies, only to a lesser extent, to my own fellow countrymen from Ulster. They do like to be with their own people who understand their ways.
It is a curious thing that even in cooking there is a difference. At the beginning of the last war I was responsible for raising a regiment in Ulster. We borrowed a man, an admirable corporal cook, from the South Wales Borderers. He was a man of great charm and great technical capacity, but he did not cook food as our people liked it. The south Welsh love to have their food full of pepper. It accounts for a lot of qualities which we have noticed in this Chamber. We do not have our food very highly seasoned. We are very plain folk, and we like to have food of a plain nature. We had great difficulty at first, because we found all the cooks emptying their pepper pots, whooped on by the corporal from the South Wales Borderers.
That is a very small point, but, on the other hand, it is a material point, and it shows that certain localities have their own practices and their own customs. I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with A Branch, which has lasted impervious to the curses of generations of soldiers, to try to restrict these postings of individuals or even of bodies, in what is a territorial army, out of the units which they have joined and of which they are fond and in which they want to serve.
Esprit de corps and "esprit de county" is a very useful factor for a soldier if he is in a hard place. A man in a tight place likes to have his friends around him, and

he likes to have his fellow countrymen around him, and to hear the homely talk he has heard from his cradle. Therefore, I do hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that every effort will be made to try to keep Territorials, even in the stresses of war, serving in the units in which they enlisted, and which are connected with those parts of the country from which they come.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading, I was somewhat indignant on this particular subject. I should like to say how very much I welcome what he has said today. I feel that he has certainly paid very considerable attention to what was said in the Second Reading Debate. I have been looking over again the words which he used in his reply to the Debate on Second Reading. I notice that he quite rightly referred to the fact that in the days of Lord Haldane there was no Royal Armoured Corps or Ack-Ack Command, and that today we have a technical problem which obviously could not have confronted Lord Haldane. I, of course, agree with the right hon. Gentleman there.
What I am perturbed about is that he should have mentioned those two corps. As he said, those are really going to be very much the front line of the Territorial Army, as compared with the tail. I do believe it is very important that we should distinguish between the front line troops and the tail. I believe that cross-postings within the front line may be more acceptable than transfers between the front line and the tail. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some indication—I do not say, tie himself down for ever; I am not expecting him to do that—that when transfers do have to take place they will be limited as far as possible, so that men do not move out of front line regiments into one of the supporting, ancillary regiments, he would do much to meet our point. There is a tremendous regimental pride, and I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that, as far as possible, those who volunteer to fight, as compared with those who volunteer to maintain, are guaranteed that, if transfers take place, they will be posted to fight and not to maintain, he will have allayed many fears.
Certainly I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are perfectly honourable so far as the Territorial Army is concerned. I am not questioning that for a moment. However, I have appreciated very much the correspondence that has taken place in "The Times" on this matter of postings since we last debated the subject, and, in particular, a letter from General Hare, who was formerly Deputy Adjutant-General, sticking up for A Branch of the War Office. It came as a particularly welcome note. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) will agree that there have always been men in the War Office who have tried to look after regimental interests. I do not say they have always been in the majority, but there have always been men who have tried to do that. I apologise if I overstated the case on Second Reading. I know the right hon. Gentleman thought I did. If I have offended any of those senior officers who have held important positions in A Branch I most heartily apologise, because those who stick up for regimental interests when on the Staff are always to be congratulated. I know it is very difficult. I hope they will accept my apologies.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to hon. Members for accepting this Amendment with such grace, and I hope, in the language of diplomacy, that relations will continue to be friendly. So far, so good. But while I am ready to support the assurance that the Under-Secretary of State has given, namely, that this power of cross-posting will not be abused, nevertheless, there are certain facts which we cannot ignore. We have to pay attention to the needs of the Army as a whole. There is not much use in having an Army unless it is properly balanced, and if we should find ourselves with a shortage of men for a particular branch upon which the efficient organisation of the Army must rely, then clearly some cross-posting would be essential. The hon. and gallant Member would be the first to complain if we failed to provide the essential equilibrium in the organisation of the Forces. The fact that the Army is so highly mechanised, and will become still more mechanised, makes it essential for it to have a rather long tail. R.E.M.E., Ordnance, Signals and the like are all to

a very large extent developing branches of the Army, at any rate, as compared with the early part of the inter-war years, and, therefore, some form of cross-posting may be required.
I want to give this assurance on behalf of my military colleagues of the Army Council and the staff of the War Office. There is not one of them who likes this frequent posting. They dislike it intensely, and I dislike it intensely for reasons purely apart from military ones, namely, that it is very expensive indeed. Frequent postings involve us in additional movements which are perhaps one of the most expensive items in our Army Votes. There are other reasons why we would prefer to curtail it as much as possible.
Having uttered that warning, if, indeed, it was necessary to mention the matter to those who have military experience and who are well aware of the needs of the modern Army, I repeat the assurance already given that we shall exercise the greatest care in the use of these powers, and we shall certainly not ignore what hon. and gallant Members have rightly said is an essential part of the organisation and spirit of the British Army, namely, the need for Territorial alignments. With this assurance, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 42, at beginning, insert:
at any time while the part of the territorial army to which he belongs is embodied, be posted without his consent to any unit within his corps or.

In line 43, at beginning, insert:
at any time while he is serving under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.

In line 43, leave out from "within," to end of line 45, and insert "his corps."

In page 7, line 3, leave out from "period," to second "be." in line 4, and insert:
of embodiment or, as, the case may be, of the period of his service under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 7, line 10, to leave out "Part I," and to insert "subsection (3) of section one."
This is a small point, but one of substance. Part I of the National Service Act includes at least one Clause—Clause 2—which deals with men who


volunteer for the Auxiliary Forces of the various Armed Forces of the Crown. It is our hope that the Secretary of State does not mean to deny to these men the advantages provided by the various subsections of Clause 5. I am sure that he does not wish to do so. I am advised that if he says:
serving for a term of part-time service within the meaning of Part I of the National Service Act …
as opposed to the amending words which we are proposing, there may be some confusion because Part I includes Clause 2 which deals with those who wish to volunteer.

Mr. M. Stewart: This need not delay us long because on the results which we want to get we are in entire agreement on both sides of the Committee. The object is that men who enter into voluntary engagements in lieu of part-time National Service shall be exempt from compulsory powers under Clause 5 of the Bill. The position is that they are so exempt because Section II of the National Service Act lays down that a National Service man who enters into an engagement
as a volunteer for a term not less than the term of part-time service which he would otherwise be required to serve under this part of this Act
shall be enlisted in accordance with that engagement, that is to say, as an engagement as a volunteer. The effect of that is that his engagement is then not governed by the National Service Act but by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, as amended by this Bill, that is, he is then a voluntary member of the Territorial Army. I think, therefore, that we get the result which we all want to get as the Act stands at present because Section II of the National Service Act, as it were, leaves the man's engagement out of that Act and hands it into the keeping of the Act of 1907 and of this Bill.

Mr. Low: Which this Bill amends?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: Yes. It is a valid arrangement. A further reason why we should not accept this Amendment is that there are certain parts of Part I—that is the part referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment—which it is quite proper to have here, namely, Section 23.

which provides that where a man's compulsory service is for some reason interrupted, he may be called upon to complete the remainder of it at some subsequent period. If we accept the Amendment, such a person would enjoy privileges and exemptions which, I am sure, it is not suggested that they should enjoy. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment would produce a result which we do not want, and that the result which we all want to achieve can be obtained without the Amendment. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.

Earl Winterton: I agree with the last part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman. When I put the Amendment down I did not intend it to apply to the other parts of the Clause. I cannot, however, regard the situation as wholly satisfactory. We have been careful on both sides to avoid unnecessary controversy in connection with this Bill, but I think that inadvertently or otherwise the hon. Gentleman, who has usually a good choice of language, used the words "I think." I must call attention in no spirit of party hostility to the great inconvenience caused to this House by the absence of a Law Officer of the Crown. We ought to have a legal interpretation of this matter. If the hon. Gentleman deliberately used the words "I think "—

Mr. Stewart: If I used the words "I think" as to the interpretation of this Clause, I was not using language as carefully as the noble Lord kindly suggested I sometimes do. I am in no doubt. I am advised that the effect of this Bill is as I stated in my previous statement.

Earl Winterton: In that case I shall not press my contention that the presence of a Law Officer is required in connection with this Clause. At the same time, although it may be out of Order to pursue it, I say—only as an obiter dictum and in no spirit of hostility—that I think that on a very complicated Bill of this kind it would be advisable to have a Law Officer present, because these questions of interpretation do arise. That was the old custom of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: It might delay the proceedings.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps we have already delayed the proceedings, because


the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends and myself—I have been the worst offender—have all made long speeches describing our past experiences, and saying how much we like this Bill. One might say that in that sense we have all delayed this Bill this afternoon—no one more than myself. However, it has been such a friendly afternoon and everyone has been so polite, that I do not wish to persist in any further opposition, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Low: Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I should like to ask the Minister and the Under-Secretary to make quite certain once again that they are right. I am sure they do not want to have any doubt, and it would be a disaster if, quite by mistake, the Committee passed a provision which put people who volunteered into the same position as those who did not volunteer. Could I have that assurance?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly give an assurance that we will make certain, beyond all possible doubt, that this Clause has the effect I have described.

Mr. Low: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The last speech of the noble Lord should have resulted in the Government's withdrawing this Clause, because he confessed that most of the speeches in support of the Amendments to the Clause had been made under a misapprehension. If that is so, the Committee ought not to be content with the lighthearted assurance given by an Under-Secretary.

Earl Winterton: I hope the hon. Gentleman, to whom I have already paid a compliment in all sincerity, will explain exactly what he is talking about, because I made no such statement as he alleges. I do not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Hughes: I have not the slighest desire to do any injustice to the noble Lord. If I misinterpreted what he said. I apologise.

Earl Winterton: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Hughes: There are far stronger reasons than mere technical reasons of misunderstanding for objecting to this Clause. One of them is that the Secretary of State has made a speech which certainly should not commend this Clause to the Committee. I quite accept his assurance that he would never be party to sending men into war unequipped. But how is it possible, facing the facts of modern war, to send men into war equipped to meet the modern developments of scientific warfare? I was asked to face unpalatable facts. I assert that the Committee is not facing unpalatable facts, but rather accepting the reminiscences of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who served in the First and Second World Wars in assuming that World War No. 3 is likely to be a repetition of the first two world wars.
I have taken a good deal of trouble to find out exactly what kind of war the Government are preparing for in their proposed reorganisation of the Territorials. I have not only read every kind of description of the recent manoeuvres in Germany, but I have been to the cinema and seen the Secretary of State reviewing troops who may be called upon to do battle in these particular circumstances, and one of the comments in the newsreel which is current in London is that the Secretary of War is, presumably, incompetent to know the lessons of those manoeuvres.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are now dealing with what is purely and simply a machinery Clause, which cannot give rise to any lengthy discussion upon the form of a future war, if there is to be one.

Mr. Hughes: Although, of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, I would point out that there is a complete unreality about this Debate if the Committee does not consider the kind of war into which the reorganised Territorials are to be sent. I submit that it is the Committee who are not facing unpalatable facts and the realities by thinking of the next war in the terms of the two world wars of the past.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(CALLING OUT FOR HOME DEFENCE SERVICE AND TERMINATION OF SUCH SERVICE.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 3 leave out from "period," to end of line, and insert "of embodiment' to 'section.'"—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS TO ROYAL AUXILIARY AIR FORCE.)

Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, at the end, to insert:
so that one of the Vice-Chairmen shall be chosen from amongst those members of the association who shall then be serving or shall have served in the Royal Air Force and who have been appointed to represent the Royal Air Force.
The Auxiliary Air Force has been in being for something like 24 years, during which time it has been administered in the main, apart from the war, by the county territorial associations, the chairmen and vice-chairmen of which have in the past been Army members. I am happy to say that in many cases that is not now the case. In the association in which I have the privilege to serve we have an ex-Royal Air Force officer as vice-chairman, and he is very good. I do not know, of course, what is happening in other associations throughout the country. I believe that the Clause should cover this point; the Royal Air Force is entitled to certain vice-chairmanships, and I hope that occasionally they will be promoted to chairmen. Not only will the Air Force benefit, but I am sure the Army will as well.
For many years I, as commander of a unit, have attended Territorial meetings and listened for hours to the domestic affairs of the Army. Before the war I always felt that the Air Force got very little consideration. They have, of course, become much more air-minded since then, but I think it is reasonable to request that the Air Force be given this right—a right which is due to them—for both the Air Force and the Army will profit by it.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I say at once that, so far as the object of the Amendment is concerned, I find myself in complete

agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I think that he perhaps has not realised that this rigid form of approach may make matters much more difficult in a particular association where it is desired to have an Air Force representative as chairman. It may be that in a particular association the intention or desire is to have the R.A.F. representative as chairman, an Army representative as one vice-chairman, and some third representative as the other vice-chairman, but if this Amendment were accepted that could not be achieved, because one of the two vice-chairmen would have to be an R.A.F. representative.
We have anticipated this difficulty, and what we have done—I hope it will meet with the approval of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—in the draft model scheme—which, as he knows, has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that there will be an opportunity of seeing exactly what is proposed—which has been drawn up for adoption, if and when the Bill becomes law, is as follows: the association shall elect a member of the association, other than the president, to be chairman, and another to be vice-chairman. The association shall, if they so desire, elect two vice-chairmen. The chairman and the vice-chairman, or the vice-chairmen, shall include one member who is serving or has served in His Majesty's Military Forces, and one who is serving or has served in His Majesty's Air Forces, or is an Air Force member of the association. I suggest it is far better to deal with what we desire by the method set out in this model rule than willy-nilly to say that one of the vice-chairmen should be a member of the Royal Air Force. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. and gallant Member will agree with the Clause as drafted.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If this model rule were incorporated in the Bill, I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied. What is the objection to putting it in the Bill? That would completely satisfy the point. I can see no possible objection to inserting the words which have been read out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a draft scheme. Surely a draft scheme is a scheme capable of amendment. He said that this is a rule under the draft scheme, and what we should like to see is the rule


inserted in the Bill, which would be an improvement. Will he not consider an insertion to that effect?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. Under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, which has been the governing statute in all these matters, provision is definitely made for the drawing up of the scheme which is to operate to govern the administration of these associations. An additional provision was included in the Act, namely, as I said in my earlier remarks, that these schemes must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is what Parliament decided in 1907, and I should have thought it was a good precedent to follow, rather than to have all these schemes embodied in an Act of Parliament.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously to reconsider this, because the Royal Air Force did not exist in 1907? I have been serving on a Territorial association where we have the advantage of a Royal Air Force officer being the vice-chairman. It would be very much better if this could be inserted in the Bill, because all of us want to see the Royal Air Force playing a bigger part than it has played up to date. If the words read out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman could be inserted in the Bill, they would have much greater force. It is not the same thing to lay the scheme before both Houses of Parliament. If the words were incorporated, it would be an indication that all the Territorial associations want to work rather more closely with the Royal Air Force. We should do everything we can to bring the Royal Air Force more closely into the work of these associations.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment and in favour of a member of the Royal Air Force holding high office in a Territorial association. In the Territorial association of which I was chairman until a little over a year ago, we had a distinguished Air Force officer whom we welcomed as vice-chairman, and I am certain that any other Territorial associations where Air Force units are administered feel the same way. But are there not some counties which have either no Air Force units to administer or such very

small units that it involves very small representation on the association? In these cases, is it desirable to make it compulsory that they should have an Air Force member as a vice-chairman?

Mr. Henderson: It applies only to joint associations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. and gallant Friend disagree with an Air Force officer commanding the Imperial Defence College?

Sir G. Jeffreys: Certainly not. I have already said that I was far from disagreeing with the desirability of having an Air Force officer as a vice-chairman or chairman of an association. I merely asked the question, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered, whether there were not some associations that administered no Royal Air Force units, and he has now told me that this applies only to joint associations, which satisfies me.

Colonel Dower: I rise because the association to which I have the privilege to belong has a chairman who is a Royal Air Force officer. We are pleased in every possible way to have him as our chairman, but I think it would be a mistake if on top of that we were obliged to have a Royal Air Force officer as a vice-chairman. I am extremely ignorant of what is a model rule. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will inform me whether this will apply to all associations.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. Under the 1907 Act there is a scheme for all associations.

Colonel Dower: The undertaking given by the Minister means that one of the chairmen will be a Royal Air Force officer, but will it be as binding as if it were in the Bill?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: But is that so? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there is a scheme for all associations, but will it be the same scheme? I understood that there was a draft model scheme being prepared. Presumably the model rule will be considered in its application to each association. He also said that it would be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but we should have no


power of amendment. If it is a scheme applying to all associations, it seems to me that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely fall to the ground. Cannot he meet the point by saying that he will consider the insertion in another place of words similar to those he has read out, because it is obviously the desire that the position of the Royal Air Force should be recognised?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. and learned Member has not quite appreciated the position. Statutory provision is made under the 1907 Act for schemes for all Territorial associations. For 42 years every association has been governed by a scheme, and every scheme is based on the requirements of that Act and has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to be unreasonable—I hope I never am—but this is really quite unnecessary. I have given the undertaking that the scheme will contain what we all desire, and it seems to me that that should be quite sufficient.

Sir R. Ross: Is it mandatory on each association?

Mr. Henderson: Certainly. I will not enter into any commitment because I am convinced that what I have said meets the need. I will, however, look at the matter again, and if there is any reasonable doubt about what the hon. and gallant Member and I both wish, from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, I will consider including something in the Bill. At the moment I am not convinced that it is necessary.

Brigadier Head: There may be a case for saying that, by law, the inclusion of the Amendment in the Bill is not necessary. Nevertheless, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been invited by an airman to intrude into an Army Bill. Although, legally, the Amendment may not be essential as a gesture, I believe it is not unimportant. During the last part of the war, especially the training period of the Army, there was one long effort to get closer to the Air Force. As a matter of principle, I should like to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman running to the khaki bosom. It would be a gesture if he looked at the matter not as a lawyer but as a member of the Air Force who wanted to intrude into Army affairs.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The Minister has gone some way to meet my point, although he has made heavy weather of it. He said that if there was an Air Force chairman why have an Air Force vice-chairman? I see no difficulty about having both.

Sir R. Ross: Have two Air Force vice-chairmen?

Air-Commodore Harvey: No, not two, one. I accept what the Minister said, provided he gives an undertaking that he will consider this matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(SPECIAL CLASS OF ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out: "not more than twenty-five thousand men," and to insert:
such number of men as the Admiralty may determine.
This Amendment is our only Amendment to Part II of the Bill, which deals with naval and marine reserves. But it is an important Amendment because it is clear that in this Clause there has been an infringement of the Royal Prerogative. Parliament has always been content that the Sovereign should have power to raise and maintain naval forces in peace time. The Bill of Rights, 1688, declared that it should be unlawful for the Sovereign, unless by consent of Parliament, to raise and maintain a standing Army in time of peace, but on that occasion there was no reference to the Navy.
It is true that Parliament has control over the Navy from the financial angle in that it grants every year the necessary supply when the Estimates come before us; it is also true that the other function of Parliament at the time of the Navy Estimates is to deal with Vote A, which concerns the personnel of the Navy. But should the Navy wish to increase the number beyond that stated in Vote A it would not be illegal in their case, as it would, I understand, be illegal in the case of the Army.
This is not the first time that this point has been raised in this century. The Navy Reserve Act, 1903, repealed, by Section 5 of that Act, the previous restriction on numbers dating from the Act of 1859, on these very grounds. I quote from the 1903 Act:
The Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Fleet Reserve shall consist of such number of men as the Admiralty may determine.…
As it is rather extraordinary that a mistake made in 1859 should be repeated after correction in 1903 I had a few caustic things to say, but I am unwilling to disturb the atmosphere after what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said about this mellow and friendly afternoon. I hope, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment because it is certain that the imposition of a ceiling in the Bill for the numbers of the Royal Navy is a retrograde step and an infringement of the Royal Prerogative.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. So far as I could follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) he put forward the remarkable claim that Parliament must not limit the number of men called up for a particular Service. In the Army Estimates, in fact in all Estimates, a specific number is put down for the consideration of the House. I indulged in some research and I discovered that in one case you, Major Milner, put down an Amendment to reduce the number. I can hardly follow the argument that it is not right for Parliament to limit the number of men called up by the Admiralty. Clause 9 (1) says:
There shall be a special class of the royal fleet reserve, which shall consist of not more than twenty-five thousand men …
If the Amendment is carried we shall give power to the Board of Admiralty to fix the number of men so that Parliament will, presumably, be rubbed out altogether. How did the figure of 25,000 get into the Bill? I cannot believe that the Admiralty thought of a number and doubled it; I cannot believe that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who sits in another place and whom I knew as a checkweighman, has experience of naval matters to enable him to fix this number of his own accord. I presume that the figure was arrived at as a result of advice

from the Board of Admiralty. If that is so why should he give them a blank cheque to put into the Bill whatever number they like? In discussing Service matters Members seem to forget all their advice about economy. I remember the Leader of the Opposition making a scathing attack on the Board of Admiralty, on the last Navy Estimates but one, when he urged the Government to force large economies upon the Board. He said that the Admiralty were engaged in making jobs for themselves and their descendants. I have great pleasure in supporting the Government, and I hope they will stick to their figure of 25,000.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Now that we are passing from a khaki to a blue bosom, no doubt we shall continue in the same mellow atmosphere, and as a contribution to that I propose to accept this Amendment. At the same time I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). This figure was put in the Bill to give Parliament the same method of control as applies to the other Services under Clause 12 (6). Sufficient control is, in fact, exercised by Parliament through the annual Navy Estmates. My hon. Friend need have no fear as to that. Every year the Estimates are made up, and we ask Parliament for a certain number of men at a certain cost. If Parliament does not wish us to have those men at that cost, it can say we are not to have the money. We consider that that is sufficient control, and for that reason we think Parliament does not desire to have this extra control. We are perfectly willing to accept the Amendment, and rely upon the Navy Estimates.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(CALLING OUT OF ARMY RESERVE (INCLUDING MILITIA.)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, on page 12, line 33, after "out," to insert "for overseas service."
As the Committee will be fully aware, the absence of these words is due to a pure inadvertence, because without them there would be no point in this paragraph.


The Committee will remember from what was said on Second Reading of this Bill, that the whole object of subsection (2, b) is to make it possible to place a man, when he is due to be transferred to the Army Reserve, into what is known as Section A of that Reserve for the first year of his Reserve service. The general principle of doing that was discussed fairly fully on Second Reading.
As the Committee is aware, there is a problem, if we are to rely merely on those who volunteer to undertake this Section A liability, of getting the requisite number as well as getting the kind of reservists with the necessary skill to make up the Reserve which we need. It is generally accepted that it is desirable for the proper defence of this country that the Reserve that could be called out speedily in time of emergency should be greater than it is at present. This was one device to that end—that a Regular soldier transferred to the Army Reserve should have the first year of his Reserve service in what is known as Section A of the Reserve, if he is one of the designated men. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will be willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 35 to 47, and to insert:
(c) without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph, any man of the army reserve, whether he entered the reserve on transfer or re-engagement or on being enlisted or on being deemed to be enlisted, shall, if he has entered into an agreement in writing to be so liable at the time in question, be liable at any time during his service in the army reserve to be so called out for overseas service.
The Amendment, in effect, takes paragraphs (c) and (d) and compresses them into one. In doing that it makes certain minor alterations in the actual sense of the paragraphs. The alterations which are produced are three in number. The first is that the category of men who may voluntarily undertake the liability for overseas service is extended from those who are transferred to the Reserve to those who re-engage or re-enlist as well. The second effect produced is that a man might voluntarily undertake this liability to be sent overseas, not merely at any time during the first five years of his service in the reserve, but thereafter as well. The effect of these two alterations

is simply to widen the field from which the volunteers who accept this liability may come.
The third alteration is that the phrase
whose character on transfer was good
is removed from the Bill, because on the whole it is more convenient to enforce conditions of that kind by administrative. action than it is by legislation. Except for those points, the Amendment merely tidies up paragraphs (c) and (d) and causes a new paragraph that takes their place to refer both to the Reserve and to the Supplementary Reserve. As a result of that, some further abbreviations and greater tidiness are possible in certain later parts of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, after "not," to insert:
without his consent in writing.
The object of this Amendment is to assist the Government, and in our opinion the necessity for it is due to what one may call a consequential omission. Under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, there is a provision that a militia man—that is to say a man who voluntarily enlists in the Regular Army Reserve without having served in the Regular Forces—if he agrees in writing, shall be liable to be called up and serve overseas for the whole period of his reserve obligation without any proclamation.
Under the Amendment which has just been accepted the militia man is transferred from Clause 12 (2, d) to Clause 12 (2, c) and as a result of that alteration in the succeeding paragraph the liability of the militia man to serve for a period exceeding 12 months overseas is cancelled. If the Amendment is accepted it will ensure that in the event of a militia man consenting in writing to this obligation, which hitherto every militia man has done, he would be able to serve for the full period of four years and would be liable for the whole of that period for service overseas without proclamation. This Amendment, if accepted, would remove an anomaly which results from the previous Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: We shall be very happy to accept the Amendment. The previous Amendment had the result that the hon. and gallant Gentleman


describes. We considered that the circumstances in which we should require a man with the militia to serve overseas for more than 12 months would in all probability be an emergency of such a character that special legislation would be introduced. There is the possibility that, for one reason or another, one might require their services for a period totalling more than 12 months, even if special emergency legislation had not been required. The number of situations in which the Amendment would have effect seems likely to be small. Nevertheless, the position might conceivably arise, and in that case we should be glad of the power which the Amendment confers.

Amendment agreed to.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, to leave out subsection (5).

This Amendment is consequential upon the rearrangement made in a previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
( ) The number of the men liable to be called out by virtue of agreements made for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section, being either men of the militia or other men—

(a) deemed to be enlisted in the army reserve for part-time service under the National Service Act, 1948, or
(b) enlisted in the army reserve (whether in pursuance of section two of that Act or otherwise) for service in lieu of part-time service under that Act,

shall not at any one time exceed fifteen thousand.
( ) The aggregate number of the men for the time being designated under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section and men (other than such as are mentioned in the last foregoing subsection) for the time being liable to be called out by virtue of agreements made for the purposes of paragraph (c) thereof shall not exceed thirty thousand."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, after "re-engages," to insert "or enlists."
The reason for the Amendment will be apparent to the Committee. As the subsection stands it lays down that a man who re-engages in the reserve after the

Bill comes into force will be subject to the new liabilities which the Bill imposes, for the obvious reason that he does it knowing what the liabilities are and with his eyes open. If this is so, with the men who re-engage, it is clearly more so with the man who enlists, who has been in the Reserve and has come out of it for a time. It is clear that he should be treated in the same way for these purposes as the man who re-engages in the Reserve.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I would congratulate the Minister of Defence upon doing what he has always been advised from the other side not to do—to yield to the advice from his own benches. Hon. Members on the other side, after advising the Minister not to yield, have been able to congratulate him on not doing so. This Clause carries out a reform which has been pressed from this side since the beginning of this Parliament, and to do them justice, by hon. Members opposite, after about a year from the beginning of this Parliament. It is an excellent reform, upon which I congratulate the Minister.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CALLING OUT UNDER SECTION 12.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 33, leave out "to (d)," and insert "and (c)."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to follow up what I said on the Second Reading about this Clause, and particularly about subsection (4). It applies the Bill to women as it applies to men. I asked the Secretary of State for War several questions during the course of the Second Reading about this matter, but he


did not take the opportunity of answering those questions when he replied to the Debate. I hope that the Minister of Defence, who is welcome at this late stage, will say what it is intended to do by this subsection.
As I read the subsection, it gives the right hon. Gentleman power to form a division of women to go into battle. That. I imagine, is the legal effect of it, should the right hon. Gentleman wish to use those powers. I appreciate that when we are dealing with war or the threat of war it is extremely difficult to limit powers while giving adequate powers for what must be done. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how many women he intends to have in reserve and how he is going to use them. I have the latest figures of the women called up on 1st July. They show that on that date the W.R.N.S., the W.R.A.C. and the W.R.A.F. had between them 1,600 officers and 29,100 other ranks, or 30,700 in all. There were 8,000, or thereabouts, in the W.R.A.C. Territorial Army. I feel that the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman are honourable in this matter, but as the Bill stands it gives him completely unlimited power to call up women before the right hon. Gentleman calls for any man at all.
If hon. Members will look back to Clause 13 (1) they will see these words:
It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State, at any time when it appears to him that the occasion so requires, to give, and when given to revoke or vary, such directions as he may think fit for calling out on permanent service in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section any man who by virtue of those provisions is liable to be so called out.
We are told by Clause 17 that the Act shall apply to women as it applies to men, so it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has power to do completely as he likes with the reserve of Women's Forces. We should like to know what he intends to do and what safeguards we have.

Colonel Dower: I should like to pay a tribute to the women who serve on the gun sites and whose services are quite invaluable. If regiments are called up it is difficult to know how they can function at all unless their women personnel are called up at the same time as the men. A most unwarrantable attack was made upon my hon. and gallant Friend the

Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who, with complete chivalry, inquired from the Secretary of State what the position of those women was to be. When the Minister replies I should like him to deal with this matter. Quite a large number of A.T.S. have met young men who happened to be the particular young men for whom they were looking. Shortly after they were married and became mothers of young children. That places the matter in a slightly different category when those women go on to the Reserve and there is a question of their being called up. Whether young women or young men are concerned, I do not think there is any case for a difference of treatment. I would like to know the position of women with young families when it is a question of calling them up.

Mr. M. Stewart: There is one point of which we are perhaps inclined to lose sight when we read that the Act shall apply to women as it does to men. A woman will not be a member of the Armed Forces at all except by her own free will. Further, if she enters into an engagement to serve in the Forces, unlike a man she is not required as a condition of going in at all to accept a reserve liability. She will only get a reserve liability as a result of two deliberate decisions taken of her own free will. In that way there is a very important difference between the position of men and women under the Bill.
It would not be possible for the Secretary of State to call up unlimited numbers of women and to make such military use of them as might enter his head. Although they are increased, the powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill are circumscribed and limited. A study of Clauses 12 and 13 makes it perfectly clear what he may or may not do and that in all circumstances, though by slightly different machinery in different cases, the use of his powers is subject to parliamentary inspection and control.
After all, the Bill is concerned only with additional liabilities for Territorials and Reservists. There is nothing in it to say that a kind of service which, as we know perfectly well, a woman is not required to perform at present, shall be added to the kinds of military service which a woman may be required to perform. The only addition made in the case of women is, as in the case of men,


to the number of occasions on which or the places where they may be required to perform them. We may dismiss as a bogy the idea of regiments of women being summoned for purposes which public opinion and common sense would altogether reject.
In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower), in all the Services it is provided by regulation that a woman is not required in the event of marriage or of having children to carry out a contract of service which would obviously conflict with the obligation she undertakes upon marriage or the birth of her children.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would it not be possible to alter the wording of subsection (4) slightly to make it clear? Could we not insert the words, "Has the meaning assigned to it by Section so and so"? At the moment it looks a little blunt. When I heard my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I thought he was reverting to John Knox and making the first blast of the trumpet against "the monstrous regiment of women," but I understand that is not the case.

Mr. M. Stewart: We are in a difficulty here. It is required of Acts of Parliament that their wording shall be legally sound and certain. It is not always possible to combine that with making them say what they appear to mean at first sight to a layman. It is almost an impossibility to draft legislation which fulfils both requirements. Here we have a subsection which is short and which legally means what we all want it to mean. We shall be prudent to leave it as it is.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should not like to let the Third Reading pass without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence on the part he has played in connection with the Bill, and also the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary. Apart from criticism from one of his own supporters, the Bill has had a very easy passage through the House with everyone trying to improve its operation. Once the initial error of omitting the name of the Minister of Defence from the back of the Bill was remedied, the Bill has not met any serious obstacle, though, if it be the case, as the Lord President said on 26th May, that it was a matter of public urgency that the Bill should reach the Statute Book early, some of us rather regret the delay that has occurred.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry that the Bill has been introduced. I would remind the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War that Keir Hardie never ceased to declare that Socialism was the way of peace. Now we have a Government of former pacifists—mostly pacifists—under the direction of America presenting itself as the most warlike Government that this country has ever seen. I am sorry that that should have taken place.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I oppose the Third Reading because I believe the Bill to be quite out of reality in relation to the tasks which the proposed auxiliary and reserve Forces will face in the event of war. I should like to be told from the Front Bench if the Government take the view stated in the Recess by the Under-Secretary of State for War. It was one of the few attempts to outline what are likely to be the functions of these Forces. Ii we are to apply the criterion of the arguments used by the Under-Secretary in a speech which obtained widespread publicity, we are entitled to know what relevance the Bill has to the sort of situation he sees. He tried to answer the question of what is the use of the Army now that we have discovered the atom bomb—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That wide question cannot arise. We can deal only with the contents of the Bill as it appears on Third Reading and not with general considerations, about which the hon. Member appears to be speaking.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you rule out an important discussion on what are to be the exact functions of these Auxiliary and Reserve Forces. Surely if under Clause 5 (1, c) we are now to send the Territorial Army to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom, I should have thought that that was relevant to a discussion of the Bill. That subsection states:
At any time while the territorial army, or the part thereof to which he belongs, is embodied, to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom.
I presume that soldiers called up to serve "in any place outside the United Kingdom" may be called upon to serve on the continent of Europe under conditions in which the atom bomb will be relevant.
I submit that soldiers who are likely to be called to be the future Territorials in a war are entitled to have their Members of Parliament oppose the subsection of a Clause in a Bill which makes them liable to serve overseas. I submit that it is quite relevant to this discussion to ask what precisely are the conditions under which these men can be called upon to serve overseas; and I contend that we have been given no satisfaction in the Debate this afternoon that the Government have any idea of the conditions under which these men will serve.
If that is so, we are not entitled to give them the men, and we are not entitled to change an Act of Parliament which enlarges the Territorial Force in an entirely new conception of war. I submit that anybody who has studied the recent reports by military authorities on the manoeuvres in Germany must have wondered whether the War Office was in a situation to understand what would be the result of this kind of warfare. I have read every conceivable account of the manoeuvres in Germany. I have read the two long articles in the "Manchester Guardian" by a military correspondent who must be listened to with respect. I have read carefully the account of the

manoeuvres by the military correspondent of the "Sunday Times." Further, I have seen every news reel in which the Secretary of State for War has been seen reviewing his troops. The more I read, the more I see the news reels, the more I see the spectacle of the Secretary of State for War performing at these manoeuvres, the more I am convinced that the War Office is not entitled to have another man, and the more I am convinced that we should not be passing the Third Reading of this Bill.
One question was put to the military authorities at the Press conference. They were asked, so the "Manchester Guardian" said—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but surely those questions relate to the Regular Army. We are dealing with the question of Auxiliary Forces, a very different matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My point is that the soldiers of the Auxiliary Forces will be called under this Bill to take part in warfare under the conditions we have seen in the news reel this week, and I wish to oppose that. I oppose Clause 5 (1, c) because it is likely to give the authorities power to send over to the Continent of Europe soldiers to fight under completely artificial conditions.
As an illustration I was saying that when the military authorities were asked to explain why they had not made any preparations for exercises against the atom bomb, they said they did not know anything about it. I submit that in these days when the atom bomb has revolutionised warfare and we have this imponderable factor introduced into modern. warfare, we are not entitled to carry on. in the old easy way and pretend that we. shall send soldiers out of the United Kingdom to fight under entirely different conditions.
I believe that this legislation is not facing facts, that it is impossible for the Secretary of State for War to tell us that he will not agree to send an Army outside the country until he is satisfied that it can be properly equipped and until it is numerically able to meet an enemy. It has been pointed out in all these articles that in a future war outside the United Kingdom we have not got the divisions, we cannot equip the divisions—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, merely as a matter of interesting procedure, may I call your attention to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill which says that the object of the Bill is:
To make auxiliary and reserve forces more readily available to meet either an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom or a minor emergency in the form of operations abroad.
I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman, by referring to the use of the atom bomb, could hardly be referring to a minor emergency. I submit, therefore, that any reference to the use of the atom bomb in connection with this Bill must be out of Order if it is a reference to the use of the atom bomb on the Continent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That completes the air of unreality about this Bill. I want to point out that paragraph (c) says, "to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom." I submit that nowadays an atom bomb may be used outside the United Kingdom. It is because of the utter unreality of this Bill and because of this utter misconception of the rôle that the Territorial Army is to play in any future war that I oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. We live in a world where we might have an atom bomb dropped on the United Kingdom which would make nonsense of all the paraphernalia of military operations. One atom bomb dropped upon London, one atom bomb dropped on Glasgow, would pulverise our military organization, and we are entitled to take that into consideration.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I could not allow this Bill to pass without extending my thanks to hon. Members in all parts of the House for having given their assistance in the matter and, as one hon. Member opposite has said, in seeking to improve certain parts of the Bill. We do not regard ourselves as infallible and we are always ready to accept contributions from whatever quarter they may come.
As regards the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) I am bound to say that if anybody is calculated to provoke a war it is the hon. Member himself, for a more pugnacious pacifist I have yet to meet in my long experience of public life. Moreover, his knowledge of military affairs is disturbing. How he

reconciles this vast experience of military organisation with his pacifist views I am unable to comprehend. However, I must say this to the hon. Member with great respect and a certain amount of condolence, that if at any time an atom bomb fell on any part of this country and destroyed those whom he mentioned, I have at least this consolation, it would effectively and effectually destroy the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
There is only one other comment I wish to make. This Bill has been regarded as an unimportant Measure, and in some respects it is so, but its purpose is to strengthen so far as is practicable the Defence Forces of the country. Whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire likes it or not, I must make this observation, that if we are to have Defence Forces, so far as it lies within our power we ought to make them strong and we must promote the greatest measure of efficiency. To do otherwise, in my judgment, is an act of national homicide and I hope we shall never be accused of that.
That is our position. Of course it would be much better for all of us if we could disband our Defence Forces. Here I make an observation that will apply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) who pleads that Socialists should become more peaceful and should abandon military expedients. I accept what he says, and we do our best in difficult circumstances. I make an appeal to him that, just as he asks that Socialists should be more peaceful and so far as is practicable abandon military measures, he should use his great influence in certain quarters to ensure that Communists become more peaceful and adopt peaceful measures.

Mr. Gallacher: When did the right hon. Gentleman change his attitude and consider Communists to be the enemy, in view of the desperate attempts he made to get a leading Communist on to the Coal Board?

Mr. Shinwell: I must not transgress the rules of Order, but if I may be permitted to reply may I say that I admit, not altogether reluctantly, but in the circumstances I mention it quite readily to the hon. Member, that there are some Communists whose intelligence entitles them


to consideration. Although that intelligence manifests itself intermittently, we all hope for the best. That, I think, is a valid excuse for offering the appointment on the National Coal Board, but what perplexes me is why the Communist referred to refused the offer made to him—

Mr. Gallacher: Because it was a corrupt offer.

Mr. Shinwell: —unless he did so at the bidding of the Communist Party.
There is, I repeat, a valid reason for asking Socialists to use all their influence to promote world peace. This Labour Government has done a great deal in that direction. We have not always been successful—that has not always been the fault of this Government—but equally we are entitled to ask the Communists and those associated with them to use their influence to promote world peace. World peace is not a one-way traffic.

Mr. Gallacher: Tell that to the Americans.

Mr. Shinwell: It calls for a response by those on the other side. I hope that the hon. Member for West Fife will use his influence in that direction.
I am very much obliged to Members in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given us, and I hope that this small Measure may make a contribution not only to the strengthening of our Defence Forces, but to the coontentment of the men in those forces.

7.34 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I did not intend to speak but I should like to say quite seriously that we on this side appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and are grateful to him for his remarks about our action. I may, perhaps, be giving away a party secret when I say that the right hon. Gentleman is more popular with me than with some of my colleagues.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that this was not in all respects a small Bill—it is not; it is a Bill which is important from the point of view of the auxiliary forces.

Mr. Gallacher: From the point of view of the Tories.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) came perilously near to going outside the ambit of the Bill. I do not want to do the same, but will echo just one thing. I hope that the world, so far as those countries who are interested in our defence are concerned, will take note of the fact that the two principal parties in this House are in agreement on a Measure of this kind. That is something which will cause favourable comment in the United States, and possibly the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) might call that fact to the attention of his friends on the other side of the iron curtain. I assure him that this is not the first time that the two sides of the House have been in opposition to what I regard as the most filthy thing in the world—that is, international Communism.

Mr. Gallacher: I can understand that from your point of view.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) REGULATIONS

7.36 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1949, dated 14th July, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.
These regulations are made under Section 81 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which provides for regulations of this kind being applied to minerals in order to make conditions regarding mineral workings harmonise with the general regulations which are made under the Act. The regulations are designed for three purposes, which I can explain briefly. The first is to ensure that mineral workers are not under a disadvantage by reason of their methods of operation so far as the workings of Section 63 of the Act are concerned. It enables them in cases where they are working, perhaps, a thin vein of land to get a larger unit of land for the purpose of making a claim than would otherwise be the case.
The second purpose of the regulations is to enable a fair allocation of the amount of a claim to be made as between the


lessor and the lessee of a mineral working. It is very largely a matter of machinery. The third purpose is slightly to amend the earlier regulations (which provided that while the value of buildings, plant and machinery used for winning and working the minerals cannot be included in the calculation of the value of the land, the existence of these things can be taken into account) by extending them to cover buildings and plant and machinery used for processing the minerals as well as for actually winning them. All the points in these regulations have been discussed with the mineral undertakers and I have reason to believe that they will be acceptable to them.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I feel much tempted to take this opportunity of putting a series of questions to the right hon. Gentleman about the restoration of land where minerals such as iron ore have been excavated, but I fear that if I gave way to that temptation I should not be allowed to get very far. Therefore, I resist it on this occasion, although I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I look forward to a very early occasion when we shall be able to hear from him an account of all the action that has been taken to solve that very pressing problem in my part of the world.
Having made those preliminary observations, which I hope did not get out of Order, I have no adverse comments whatsoever to make with regard to the regulations. There is, however, just one small point, which is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman—it is the way our Parliamentary machine operates—to which I desire to draw attention. Although these regulations were made on 14th July, 1949, under our machinery it has been impossible, I gather, until today to have a Resolution in this House approving them.
Under the regulations all claims have to be made before 31st December, 1949, with the result that time is now a little short between the coming into effect of the regulations and the date by which a claim can be made. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will not press too harshly for full particulars of each claim to be supplied to him by 31st December next. I am sure that

all claimants will do their utmost to do this, but there may be some who can give notice in broad outline and really require more time to fill in the details. I feel sure that, having regard to the short interval of time, the right hon. Gentleman will be willing not to be too harsh in demanding the fullest particulars of each claim by that date so long as he has adequate notice of the claim.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: On the first point raised by the hon. and learned Member, if I may go as far out of Order as he went, I will gladly meet him at any time and at any place on this very difficult problem on which I feel as acutely as he does. I am most anxious that we should be able to solve it. On the question of time, while I agree that these regulations have not yet been confirmed and have still to be confirmed by the House of Lords, nevertheless mineral undertakers have had a knowledge of these regulations since 14th July, and even earlier, because they have been the subject of informal discussions, and I hope that they have not been waiting until the regulations are confirmed by both Houses before they get to work preparing their claims. I gladly give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that the Central Land Board will not be indifferent over these claims and, so long as claims are submitted and claimants give the best information they can, they will not be rejected as being inadequate.
I Would point out, as I may have occasion to point out in the future, that there is a time limit to which we are working. Claims have to be paid by a certain date and it is impossible, if one is to carry out that statutory obligation, to leave too much time for the making of claims. All these claims have to be investigated, they are arbitrable, and when one knows to what the claims broadly amount, one has to make a scheme and make provision for payment, which is going to be a long job and very difficult to carry out within the time. For that reason, one would expect the mineral undertakers to do the best they can and to give the fullest information and, of course, to submit whatever claims they can make by the appropriate time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, dated 14th July, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.
These regulations confer the same conditions for Scotland as those for England and, since there is no difference, I think it unnecessary to discuss these.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

7.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Scottish Standing Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to England to make provision for reciprocal arrangements in connection with ancillary matters arising from the Bill and the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
This Motion will enable the Scottish Standing Committee, instead of the Standing Orders Committee of the House, to consider amending provisions which will apply beyond Scotland. The Government intend to move these Amendments on the Committee stage. They are machinery provisions which will deal with certain overlapping provisions between England and Scotland and, in order that they shall be dealt with on the Committee stage, it is necessary to have this Motion.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to be clear on this, because the Order says that the Standing Committee will have power to introduce new Clauses to amend a Bill in relation to England. The Secretary of State for Scotland has remarked that the Government intend to move some Amendments and he seemed to suggest that the matter was out of the hands of the Standing Committee. I want to know if it is possible for me to move a new Clause and if I can move a new Clause in a form which would entail an amendment of the English Act. I should like to be clear as to the position.

Mr. Woodburn: It seems to me that what is in Order is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee, and not for me to decide. What the House are deciding tonight is that supplementary to the normal Standing Orders of the House, the Scottish Standing Committee may be

able to amend a Bill in such a way as to deal with the position of Scottish probationers who go to England as with English probationers who go to Scotland and to deal with prisoners and enable them to report to the police in England if they go to England. It is simply a procedural Motion and is for the Chairman of the Committee to administer.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask for a Ruling on this Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Secretary of State cannot of course give a Ruling. Quite clearly any facilities thought by the Chairman to be available to the Secretary of State will be available in the normal form to hon. Members in relation to these matters committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Motion the Secretary of State has put down is one that is reasonable, and we offer no objection to it from this side of the House.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law of Scotland relating to the probation of offenders, and the powers of courts under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937; to abolish certain punishments and obsolete sanctions, and otherwise to reform existing methods and provide new methods of dealing with offenders in Scotland; to alter the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts in Scotland; to amend the False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933, to regulate the management of prisons and other institutions and the treatment of offenders and other persons committed to custody in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the aforesaid matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act, and any expenses incurred by him in the training of probation officers, and officers or servants serving in approved probation hostels or approved probation homes as defined in the said Act of the present Session or in remand homes or approved schools, and in the training of persons for appointment as probation officers or as such officers or servants as aforesaid:
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency, the treatment of offenders and matters connected therewith:


(c) of any expenses incurred by the General Board of Control for Scotland in connection with State Mental Hospitals;
(d) of any sums by which grants payable in pursuance of regulations made under subsection (1) of section sixty-six of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, for the purposes of superannuation benefits to officers engaged in health services are increased by reason of any provision of the said Act of the present Session enabling such regulations to be made for the purpose of granting superannuation benefits to officers employed in State Mental Hospitals;
(e) of such sums as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct to be paid—

(i) towards expenditure incurred by local authorities, as defined by the said Act of the present Session, in meeting the expenses of probation committees in connection with the probation and supervision of offenders and the supervision of children and young persons;
(ii) towards expenditure incurred by any society or person in establishing, enlarging, improving or carrying on approved probation hostels or homes;
(iii) towards expenditure incurred by any body approved by the Secretary of State in the training of probation officers or of persons for appointment as probation officers;
(iv) towards expenditure incurred by any body approved by the Secretary of State in the training of officers or servants serving in any place in which offenders or persons awaiting trial may be detained, or serving in approved probation hostels or homes, and of persons for appointment as such officers or servants;
(v) towards expenditure incurred by any society engaged in supervising or assisting persons released from a prison, Borstal institution or detention centre as defined in the said Act;
(vi) towards expenditure incurred by any body or person approved by the Secretary of State in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders, and matters connected therewith;
not exceeding, in the case of any such expenditure as is mentioned in sub-paragrap (i) of this paragraph, fifty per cent. of that expenditure;
(f) of any sums by which grants under section one hundred and seven of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, towards the expenses of councils of counties and large burghs are increased by reason of any provision of the said Act of the present Session;
(g) of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948;
and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State and the said Act of the present Session."

Orders of the Day — NURSES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the General Nursing Council for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) all expenses incurred by the Council with the approval of the Secretary of State which are attributable to defraying expenditure incurred by regional nurse-training committees constituted under the said Act;
(b) any contributions made by the Secretary of State towards the expenses of the Council in inspecting and approving, for the purposes of rules made by the Council relating to the training of nurses, institutions vested in him; and
(c) any fees and allowances paid to a person appointed under the said Act by the Lord President of the Court of Session to determine a matter relating to the refusal of the Council to approve an institution for the purposes of any such rules as aforesaid or to a withdrawal by the Council of approval given by them for those purposes to an institution, or to the variation or revocation of a scheme for the training of nurses approved under the said Act."

Orders of the Day — HARDWOOD STOCKS (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Marples: The subject of tonight's Adjournment Debate has the rather odd and harmless title of "X Y Z Timber." Under the cloak of this harmless title the Government carry out what I consider to be unfair and unethical trading. It deals with hardwoods which, of course, are quite distinct from softwoods in their application to the trade. There are hundreds of species and almost every country in the world supplies this country with hardwoods. Skilled and selective buying is required and specialised industries and consumer industries have to take great care to get the correct grade, quality and hardness of timber. That leads to the first conclusion that of all materials unsuitable for bulk purchase this is the least suitable because of the vast number of varieties.
The history of the sale of hardwoods in this country after the war and prior to 1st April, 1949, is as follows: First,


the distribution of timber was left to the pre-war importers and they had a quota on the stocks held and the pre-war turnover. There was a very rigid arrangement and only companies in business prior to the war had any chance of survival or of doing business after the war. The consumer had to have a licence to consume certain quantities of hardwoods and these licences were given to importers who had obtained fresh stocks. There was a price control on hardwoods and there was bulk purchase. On 22nd March the right hon. Friend of the Parliamentary Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, came to this House with a flourish of trumpets, to which only the President of the Board of Trade could treat us, to announce that a large number of controls were going and that this was to the benefit of the country and, of course, to the benefit of industry. He announced on 22nd March, 1949, that these hardwoods would be what he called de-controlled. They would, he said,
continue to pass through Government stocks as at present and the timber control will exercise discretion in selling their stock by paying special attention, in the case of the better grades. to the use for which the buyer seeks to acquire them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 213.]
That is the very praiseworthy object which the President of the Board of Trade had in mind. In answer to a supplementary question from a Member on his side of the House he said that so far as quality was concerned his hon. Friend knew the position in respect of the furniture utility scheme. He went on to say that he was satisfied that supplies were adequate to provide for decontrol.
So the President of the Board of Trade promised three things on 22nd March, when he announced his new scheme. The first was that he would pay special attention to grading, the second was that the quality of hardwoods would be maintained, and thirdly he gave an undertaking that supplies would be sufficient. That is the history up to 1st April, 1949, giving a brief account of the scheme and of what the President of the Board of Trade said on 22nd March, when he announced his new scheme.
Let us look at what happened from 1st April onwards. So far as the consumer is concerned licensing is abolished with the exception of one or two minor grades of hardwood. Bulk purchase con-

tinues and all the timber goes into what is known as the national stock. That is under the control of the Board of Trade and some inventive person at the Board of Trade, not the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope, decided to call the scheme the X Y Z timber scheme. The reason was that this national stock was to be divided into three categories, X, Y and Z. The Z category was absolute rubbish in quality. It was the accumulation of the follies of the Timber Control over a number of years. It was what the trade call "junk," and it was sold at twice the market price. X was a moderate timber and the purchaser could get 50 per cent. of it. Y was a very good timber. The Board of Trade insisted that importers should take some from the three categories. One could have 50 per cent. of X, 35 per cent. of Y and 15 per cent. of Z. The reason they had this scheme was because they wanted to dispose of the junk which they had accumulated in their stocks over a period of years. This scheme enables the Board of Trade to dispose to industry in this country of all the bad timber which they themselves buy.
In addition, the consumer of hardwoods has to pay cash. The point which really made me determine to bring this matter to the attention of this House is that not only do the Board of Trade say that the consumer must take a certain percentage of this had timber which no one wants, but they also tell him that he must pay cash for it. That is made a condition of the sale. Having made sure that the consumers take supplies of that timber and put that timber into their stock they have then told several of them, "You cannot now have this good timber which you want to sell." In the result the Board of Trade unload their very bad timber on the industry and do not make good their word by giving the industry the good timber.
Let us for a moment look at the ethics of this scheme. The Board of Trade fix all prices and make millions of pounds on the sale of softwoods to the people of this country. The high cost of housing today is practically the ruination of the housing programme, and yet the Board of Trade make many millions of pounds every year by insisting that industry takes softwood at a very high price. In this case they are not only insisting that industry shall take hardwoods at a high price,


but are insisting upon them taking bad hardwood and are not giving them good material.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is not like his wife trying to buy half a pound of tomatoes and being told that if she buys two pounds of bad cabbage she can have them, and also that she will have to buy two pounds of potatoes also. That is what is happening in the case of timber. Someone then turns round and says, "Now that you have bought the bad cabbage and the potatoes you cannot have your tomatoes." I am not a married man, and it is not for me to say what a wife would say to her husband in such circumstances. As a politician I have a good idea what a housewife would say, although I am not sure that I could reproduce the picturesque phrases of a housewife who was asked to buy groceries on those lines.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary might not pass on those principles to the Ministry of Food? Incidentally, I am grateful to him for attending at short notice. I know he has rushed his dinner to get here, and I am grateful for that also. He would have rushed here even quicker I imagine, if, when he ordered his dinner the Minister of Food or the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry had insisted that not only should he have his dinner, but that he should buy half a pound of snoek or whalemeat as well.
This question of the ethics of the matter is worrying the trade a great deal. I should like to quote from a letter sent to the Timber Control on 13th October. It is from a man who was unable to obtain the good hardwood but had had the bad hardwood thrust upon him. He wrote:
The position, therefore, is that having bought some mouldy biscuits at more than double the price of good ones, on the understanding that by so doing we should obtain some jam, we are now calmly told that there is no jam. This appears to my simple mind as not only blackmail, but a swindle.
The answer of the Timber Control is also dated 13th October. I must say that for a Government Department the letter was answered fairly promptly. It stated:
If you will let me know which woods in X and Y you are unable to obtain in order to deal with your credits of Z, I will have the position examined at once. It would also assist me if you could name any specific parcels and the areas in which they exist, so that the situation can be dealt with in detail.

Here we have the Board of Trade Timber Control, with all the control which they have in the world over timber —they buy it all and fix the prices—saying to a man who wants to buy some, "I do not know what we have got. If you will let me know where it is I will see if I can let you have some good timber." It is monstrous when the Timber Control does not know where good timber is or whether there is any good timber.
I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to do about a case like that. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that because the Timber Control is a Government Department and is publicly owned, it automatically acts or conducts its affairs efficiently. That is not necessarily so. If a mistake is made in the Department when hardwood is being bought what happens is rather like the doctor's mistakes—they bury them. The doctor buries his mistakes or at least he used to do so; now he has no time to make any mistakes when diagnosing his patients. The Timber Control will buy bad timber and insist on the importer taking it. By so doing they perpetuate that particular section of the Board of Trade because any mistakes they make will never see the light of day. The Prime Minister might have suggested in his statement today a cut in the Timber Control.
If it is fair to do this with timber, will it not be fair to do the same with stool? If the Government nationalise steel, as they propose to do, and then turn out some bad steel would it be possible and moral for the Government to adopt a precisely similar scheme and to say to the motor car manufacturers, "You can have so much good steel but you must take so much bad steel," and after they have taken the bad steel then to tell them that they cannot have the good steel? I ask that as a specific question.
On the ground of efficiency, distribution is normally to help the consumer. The builder's merchant who sometimes supplies timber and all the different needs of builders is there for one specific purpose, to satisfy the consumer and see that he gets his materials in a steady flow in order that he can build. Under


the scheme with which I am dealing tonight distribution is arranged purely to enable the Government to get rid of their stocks. All consumer's choice disappears and manufacturers are forced to stock unsaleable timber.
Quite frankly that is wrong, in my opinion, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some indication as to when this scheme is to come to an end and how it is to come to an end. If he cannot do that I would like him to try to justify it on moral grounds and on grounds of ethics. If it is right, and he succeeds in justifying it on ethical grounds, can private traders carry on that business and use the same mode of conduct? I think it is important to know that there should be one rule for all in the country and not one rule for a Government Department and another rule for private traders.
At present the effect of this scheme is to make more expensive the cost of products into which hardwood enters. Modern methods of mass production are slowed down, because manufacturers get certain quantities of hardwoods which are unsuitable and have to put them in stock and do not get sufficient suitable wood. As a result, a large number of manufactured hardwood commodities are being imported into this country from abroad. Parquet flooring is coming from the Netherlands, and we have the absurd position of machinery and men in our own country without work, because they have not the hardwood.
I beg of the Parliamentary Secretary to remove this scheme at once. I would ask him to do something in the future which the President of the Board of Trade has not done in the past, and that is to consult the trade. The President did not consult the retailers when he made them lower their prices. He did not consult members of the trade when he arbitrarily imposed this scheme upon them, parts of which are quite unworkable. I believe that the only body he ever consults is the T.U.C., whom he consults before he does anything at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the trade is consulted and that this scheme is removed. Expediency is no answer to a question of morals.

8.3 p.m.

Sir William Darling: As the House is aware, the

Secretary of State for Scotland has on more than one occasion informed us that one of the factors limiting housing in Scotland is timber. In Scotland there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the Timber Control.
I was informed recently of the difficulties with which manufacturers are faced. The greatest users of timber are those who, in the nature of things, accumulate the greatest amount of unwanted and unsuitable timber. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has pointed out, every sale is a conditional sale. The manufacturer has to take a parcel, so much of which is good and so much of which, in certain classes of business, there is no opportunity of using whatsoever.
There is the double difficulty that the yards which accumulate class 3 timber—which is hardly suitable for anything but fuel—stand statistically with the Timber Control in such a position that they cannot get further supplies of class 1 and class 2 timber. If a man is a large consumer of high grade timber, and has been continuously a large consumer, he stands to put himself out of business, because his accumulation of an increasingly large stock of junk prevents him applying for the superior timber which is the only kind he can use in his class of trade.
A second question has been put to me by my friends in the timber trade. It was first raised in connection with the importation of charred wood from Hamburg which caused some concern to people on the east coast of Scotland. I do not know what happened to that. Timber merchants have asked what are they to do with the inferior material which they have been compelled to take and for which there is no outlet? They could, of course, take it to the balance sheet and put no value on it, which would be discouraging to the Chancellor, although it would be the proper thing to do. They would like some guidance from the Timber Control as to what they should do with it. It might be disposed of as fuel. Is there any restriction on it?
I agree that the ethical side has been well put by my hon. Friend. Conditional sales in certain merchandise were declared to be illegal. I recollect, in the silk hosiery trade, the conditional sale of a certain class of hosiery


in order to buy another class was declared to be illegal, and certain punishments were inflicted upon merchants who made conditions of sale. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has that in mind. Perhaps he would make it clear that there is no condition of sale in the Timber Control. Is it the case that suitable timber, in the judgment of a manufacturer, can be supplied to him and is there no conditional sale involved in it?
This short discussion which we have had is an indictment of the Timber Control. I was more credulous than my hon. Friend. When the President of the Board of Trade said, with such a flourish of trumpets, that he was removing a number of controls so lengthy and far-reaching in their character that he would not detain the House of Commons with them because they ran into many scores, I got the impression that that was a great sweeping away of these impediments. But if what my hon. Friend has said is correct—and I do not doubt it—that impression was quite false. The controls were not removed, but remained in their most offensive characteristic. They have had the effect in practice of encouraging, first, the buying of worthless timber and secondly, the use of worthless timber. These are indictments which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will dispose of effectively in his reply.

8.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has raised a matter which I agree is of importance to the entire hardwood trade, whose long and loyal co-operation with my Department has enabled the national needs of hardwood, from furniture to shipbuilding, to be met in adequate measure during the last 10 critical years. I would emphasise that it is the help we have had from the trade which has made possible continuous supplies and their fair distribution in these difficult times.
I am sorry in some ways that the hon. Gentleman raised this matter at this moment of time. I hope he will agree with me that, as discussions are in fact at present proceeding with the trade, it would be wrong of me to prejudice those discussions; anxious as I am to have the fullest advice possible from the trade. I will not be drawn into a discussion about

consultation in general. On this matter consultation is proceeding at this moment and I want to get the full benefit from it.

Mr. Marples: May I explain to the Parliamentary Secretary that I put down my name for an Adjournment Motion a considerable time ago, during the Recess and that is the reason why it is raised now and not several months earlier.

Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not complaining. I am merely saying that since discussions are proceeding, and we have had so much help in the past, it is important we should have the best advice we can get, and that is what we are trying to obtain.
As the hon. Member has explained, at the beginning of the war the Government took over the importation of hardwood. Since then Timber Control has maintained Government stocks of hardwood which have, I think, by and large enabled the hardwood consumption, although until quite recently below free demand, to exceed that of pre-war for the whole of the last six years. This increased consumption is due largely to the substitution of hardwood for scarce softwood to the greatest possible extent. The Government have no desire—I say what has been said so often before—to extort profits from the consumer. The last published Trading Accounts and Balance Sheet show that for the last two years for which accounts have been published, the net trading result of the operations of Timber Control has been a loss of about 1 per cent. on turnover, reflecting I think the general success with which a policy of trading on a "no profit, no loss" basis has been carried out.
It has always been the policy of Timber Control to dispose of its hardwood stocks, known as the national stock, in a balanced and orderly fashion ensuring, as any prudent trader would do, that sales over any period would represent a fair cross-section of existing stock. From the outbreak of war until quite recently the licensing of hardwood consumption which was necessary to direct inadequate supplies to essential needs also gave us the means of carrying out this policy. The releases of hardwood from national stock were made only against customers' consumption licences produced to the Control by the timber merchants. Care was taken to


see that the grades and the species of wood specified on the licences both corresponded to the uses for which the licences were required and, over a period, represented a fairly balanced proportion of total releases and total stocks.
Early this year when it was decided that the improved hardwood supply position would allow us to abolish licensing for nearly all types of hardwood from the 1st April, the picture obviously radically changed. That, which was a very considerable move, altered the whole picture. From 1st April, if we had not made any further arrangement, any merchant would have been entitled to go to national stock and to draw as much of any quality or species as he wished to buy for the purpose either of sales or stock building.
National stock amounted at that date to something like 24 million cubic feet—about one year's consumption of imported hardwood worth about £20 million. An appreciable part of it consisted of hardwood which, as it had been bought during the post-war period of scarcity when quantity here at home was more important than quality in meeting essential needs, would inevitably prove less attractive to the customer than those supplies which we had been able to buy more recently under more favourable conditions. There was a time when we literally had to take what we could get. Later on the position improved, and we were able to exercise very much greater choice. I think that it was clearly advisable—

Mr. Marples: in connection with the hon. Gentleman's last point, is it the case that the Timber Control are now transferring to this bad section timber which they have recently purchased?

Mr. Edwards: I would not accept that. I would say that the less good timber—the timber of which complaint has been made—is almost wholly the result of the kind of buying that we had to do in the years when we had to get what we could.
Before I gave way, I was saying that it was clearly advisable in the interests both of the general body of hardwood consumers and of the taxpayer, to continue the policy of sharing out fairly what was available. Equally clearly, the disposal of a large and a varied stock in accordance with this policy but without the detailed control afforded by consumption licences was a difficult problem and,

I grant readily, a problem to which no, perfectly satisfactory solution was likely to be found. What we did was to tell our Timber Control officers that in order to continue a balanced and orderly disposal in these new circumstances national stock should be divided into the three categories which have already been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Every purchaser from national stock had to take a minimum of 15 per cent. of the Z woods—those are the less popular—and could not take more than 35 per cent. of the X woods—those are the popular varieties.

Sir W. Darling: "Had to take"—it is a condition of sale.

Mr. Edwards: Yes. I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) in a moment.
The balance—the Y woods—consisted of intermediate types. On the advice given to me—and I have looked at this matter carefully because the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me adequate notice—I do not accept that there is a lot of "junk" as he put it, in the national stock. The Z category hardwood, which was acquired for the most part in these difficult and immediately post-war circumstances when it was often the only hardwood available to meet essential needs, amounted on 1st July to about one-fifth of all national stock.
All things are relative, and my own feeling is that the fact that Z woods are now thought so unattractive is at least partly due to the Timber Control's energy and skill in recently buying more and better varieties. The hon. Member for Wallasey referred to an individual complaint. I thought as I listened to him that in this matter the Control had behaved in exactly the right way. A complaint had been lodged. The Control, I gather, answered the complaint quickly and said, "Please give us further details and we will go into the matter quite fully." That is the attitude which I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to say was the kind of thing which pleased him.

Mr. Marples: That was asking the customer to indicate where Timber Control's stocks were. The gravamen of my


charge is that Timber Control have not the slightest idea, where the timber stocks are.

Mr. Edwards: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is misled. If a complaint is made about this vast stock, then it is reasonable to say to the complainant, "Please particularise, and we will go into the matter Tully." However, I imagine that that case is proceeding. I do not know the details of it. I do not know the actual case.
Before I turn to the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey, I should like to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh about conditional sales. Of course, we had to look into this matter very fully. If the hon. Gentleman were interested I would give him all the details, but I will content myself by saying that the way in which this hardwood is being disposed of is not contrary either to the letter or, if I may give my own view, to the spirit of the law. I have taken the highest advice from the proper quarter on that point. I am absolutely satisfied that what Timber Control is doing at present in the way of this orderly distribution of wood is legal and, I believe, in the best interests of the trade. Within the framework of this policy which we have been pursuing, everything reasonably possible was done to smooth the path of the disposal of the rational stock. Flexibility—

Sir W. Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on. The flexibility was introduced into the arrangement by allowing purchasers to overdraw their entitlement of X wood up to a certain limit. In addition, in consultation with the Timber Trades Federation, it was decided to allow three months' rent-free storage to buyers of hardwood from the national stock and this avoided much unnecessary movement of the wood which would have been involved and also relieved the hardwood trade of considerable expense.
The course which was then adopted had two very considerable advantages. In the first place, a wide variety of Government stocks were shared out fairly among all merchants and consumers, instead of the most desirable items going

to a few. I should mention that, in our discussions with the trade on all these points, we found that they felt strongly—and I would emphasise that—that whatever changes we may later decide to introduce into our present arrangements, some safeguard to ensure fair distribution of the more desirable woods in the national stocks is essential. I challenge either of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to deny that statement or to put against it any responsible opinion from the trade.
In the second place, Timber Control, and through them the taxpayer, is not likely, as the result of maintaining continuity of essential supplies in a difficult post-war period, to be able to meet the heavy trading loss which would occur if the best of the national stock were rapidly sold off and the rest left. When, as we hope, we revert to private trading, we want continuity in it, and we would do no service to those who will take this trade over in due course if we were to dump this stock now. Again, I do not believe that any responsible opinion in the trade would deny that view. It is, then, of the utmost importance from everybody's point of view that we should clear this stock in this orderly fashion, and particularly from the point of view of those who I hope will in due course have this trade in their own hands.
While I recognise that no solution of the problem of the disposal of the national stock is likely to be completely satisfactory to every individual member of the hardwood trade, I will say again that we are at present discussing with representatives of the Timber Trades Federation whether some modifications can be made in present arrangements. These somewhat technical discussions are still going on, and I am confident that a satisfactory arrangement will be reached. I rule nothing out; I am content on this matter that there should be the fullest consultation with the trade from every point of view and that we shall find an understanding, as we have done over so many of these difficult years, and in the interests of all the people concerned, about what changes should be made in the present system of allocation.
I do not suppose that the trade would agree with the precise way in which we have done this, but I am quite certain that the trade as a whole would agree that some way must be found for the


orderly distribution of the national stock. Certainly, at any rate on the advice given to me, I would say that no responsible merchant in this field would really behave in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested. This is a matter which I admit is difficult, but is one on which we are doing our best and on which we shall continue to take the advice of the trade and make whatever changes are called for.

8.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think the House is entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is evident that, although the President of the Board of Trade has said that he was doing away with control, he was not doing away with it, but rather reintroducing it in another form.

Mr. Edwards: The President of the Board of Trade said nothing of the kind. He said that he was doing away with the rather detailed and technical system of individual licences, which is an entirely different matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is perfectly true that he subsequently modified his remarks so that they could not bear the full interpretation of what my hon. Friend called the "flourish of trumpets" with which he introduced his remarks, but he certainly did introduce them in a way which would have led the ordinary man in the trade to suppose that it was a great deal more than the Parliamentary Secretary has said. For instance, the President of the Board of Trade said:
… as soon as this Order comes into effect, hardwood will be quite free for consumption by all purchasers, and not only the furniture industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 215.]
That goes a little further than merely saying that he was sweeping away certain detailed, technical and meticulous interferences in the procedure of individual licences. If the Parliamentary Secretary will read that sentence with a slight alteration, he would be given the impression that whisky would be quite free for consumption by all purchasers and he would not assume automatically that it would be parcelled out, involving the purchase by some of a considerable quantity of Algerian wine and by others of more or less drinkable gin. We now

understand that the President, did not mean what he said.
Next comes the question whether it is now being satisfactorily done. The Parliamentary Secretary advocated with great vigour the theory of conditional purchasing, which he said did not contravene either the letter or spirit of the law. I trust that his remarks will not embarrass his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food when she is carrying out prosecutions of traders who have carried out similar practices. The last thing which the Parliamentary Secretary said was that the earlier part of the stock was not so good, but the later stocks were very good indeed. Maybe, that is so, but the Parliamentary Secretary will know his own circular which was sent out on 21st July, 1949, which was long after the alteration made by the President of the Board of Trade, and in which it was stated that the following woods had been transferred from Y category to Z category, which is the one which, on the admission on the Parliamentary Secretary, can only be disposed of by conditional sales:

"(a) Unedged Beech (excluding Yugoslavian)
(b) All "C" and "CX" grade African logs, solid and sawn.
(c) All Borneo Logs solid and sawn (excepting 34 inch and up diameter round White Seraya).
(d) Gurjun Logs, solid and sawn.
(e) Limba, Frake, White Afara, Makore, Idigbo, Canarium and Antiaris logs taken into national stock, i.e. excluding such logs taken direct ex ship to Plywood mills which will be dealt with as Special Requirements outside the groups."

All these have now been transferred to the category which can only be sold under this arrangement, and yet this was announced quite a long time after the arrangements made by the President of the Board of Trade had been announced to this House. It is one-fifth of the national stock. He has already told us that the national stock was something of the order of 20 million feet, which is £20 million. We are discussing £5 million worth of woods which cannot be sold except under very considerable pressure. The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). My hon. Friend asked whether a trader who has purchased under pressure—because it is admittedly


under pressure—can dispose of that timber quite freely. Could the Parliamentary Secretary answer that question?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: So he could sell it for burning for fuel if he wished? I am sure traders will be interested to know that.

Mr. Edwards: I deprecate very strongly the suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What suggestion have I made?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is implying what I did my best to deny, and his hon. Friend made the same point. I deny that it is right to describe the Z stock as "junk." It is, I admit, inferior in quality to the other grades. The whole purpose of the grading system was to bring out that point, but the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is unfair in view of the explanation I have given.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was making no suggestion; I was merely asking whether the trader was able to dispose of the timber in any way he liked. It was not I who said it was "junk," or who gave the definition. Let me give the hon. Member's definition:
Stock of poor quality or deteriorated stock or species unsuitable for most commercial purposes.
These are very strong words, and, as I say, I do not think that anybody here has made the suggestion that the wood is unusable in any way. But what we certainly have said, and what the hon. Member has just admitted, is that it is wood which the trader would not be purchasing in the ordinary way, and which, as my two hon. Friends have stated, he may find himself landed with for a considerable amount.

Mr. Edwards: The merchant who buys from us or the Timber Control is perfectly free to sell how he likes.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is the further point. Admittedly, the merchant is quite free to re-sell it, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, which I am sure is a point he will be interested to know because nowadays one never knows when one is contravening the law.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand. The bulk of the purchases are being made by merchants, and they are in fact buying to sell again.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that I do not understand, I do not think he is very clear on the matter himself. What is being discussed are conditional sales, sales under pressure, and to say that a merchant is accepting this because he is intending to re-sell it is, surely, if I may with all respect use the word, rather a quibble. The fact is that a purchaser is having forced upon him an amount of stuff which in the trade he would find great difficulty in using, and my hon. Friends were saying that this practice should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Secretary said it was his desire—and we welcome his statement—to get back to private enterprise in this matter as soon as he could, and to get rid of this control and hand it over to the trade in an orderly fashion. But he says that he is now discussing whether some modifications can be made to the present arrangement. That is what my hon. Friends were pressing for. The matter should receive more expeditious treatment, as my hon. Friends said. I am sure that in all these matters a certain amount of Parliamentary pressure does no harm in accelerating the sometimes somewhat lengthy process of negotiation to which, naturally, the Board of Trade demur if it means that they are to be found in default as having bought some stuff of which they find it difficult to dispose.
As I say, the analogy of the Algerian wine occurs to everyone's mind. I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Government are welcoming the "no profit, no loss" basis. I am not sure that that holds good for all transactions with the Timber Control; I am not sure that it holds good for the softwood transactions. What made me attend the House this evening, and the point in which I am interested in relation to these transactions, is the inordinate profits which are made on softwood. That bears directly upon the cost of houses, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will deny that the


figure of £7,500,000 which appeared in some of the papers which he submitted to the House is the resultant, I will not say profit but out-turn of the transactions to the benefit of the Board of Trade and Timber Control and to the detriment of those who subsequently wished to live in houses at a reasonable rent.
However, we have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the matter is proceeding, that he is doing his best to get out of State trading and to get into private trading as fast as he can, and

that negotiations are now actually proceeding for the modification of the present arrangements. These are all signs of grace and we welcome them; we all hope that they will be rapidly proceeded with, because up to now these transactions have not all been entirely satisfactory to the trade neither have they been satisfactory to the country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Nine o'Clock.